Watson v. Johnson

389 F. App'x 318
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Watson v. Johnson. Read the opinion of the Court — 411 F. App'x 629
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided July 30, 2010·No. 10-6045·Unpublished

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Edward L. Watson appeals from the district court’s order denying his Motion for Scientific Analysis of Untested Evidence filed in the course of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) proceeding. Because the district court has not yet ruled on the remaining claims in Watson’s habeas peti *319 tion, we dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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 Watson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable 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

Watson v. Johnson, 389 F. App'x 318 (4th Cir. 2010).

389 F. App'x 318 (Watson v. Johnson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.
337 U.S. 541 (Supreme Court, 1949)