Washington v. Wallens Ridge State Prison

Fourth Circuit

Washington v. Wallens Ridge State Prison

423 F. App'x 305

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Washington v. Wallens Ridge State Prison. Read the opinion of the Court — 371 F. App'x 396 →

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided April 15, 2011·No. No. 10-6954·Published

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Christopher George Washington seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, without prejudice, for failure to comply with Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Washington seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an ap-pealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Christopher George Washington seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, without prejudice, for failure to comply with Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Washington seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an ap-pealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.

Washington v. Wallens Ridge State Prison, 423 F. App'x 305 (4th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

423 F. App'x 305 (Washington v. Wallens Ridge State Prison) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related