Tavon Singletary v. State of Maryland , 693 F. App'x 263 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 17-6601
    TAVON P. SINGLETARY,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    STATE OF MARYLAND; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
    MARYLAND,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
    J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-03591-JFM)
    Submitted: July 20, 2017                                          Decided: July 25, 2017
    Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Tavon P. Singletary, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE
    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Tavon P. Singletary seeks to appeal an order of the district court dated April 27,
    2017. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 
    28 U.S.C. § 1292
     (2012); Fed. R.
    Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 
    337 U.S. 541
    , 545-46 (1949). Our
    review of the docket does not reveal an order entered on that date. To the extent that
    Singletary seeks to appeal the district court’s orders ordering him to file a response to the
    Respondent’s motion to dismiss or returning improperly filed discovery motions, those
    orders are not final nor are they immediately appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.
    Moreover, although the district court dismissed Singletary’s 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2012)
    petition after he filed his notice of appeal, his premature notice of appeal cannot be saved
    by the doctrine of cumulative finality. In re Bryson, 
    406 F.3d 284
    , 288 (4th Cir. 2005).
    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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-6601

Citation Numbers: 693 F. App'x 263

Judges: Duncan, Wynn, Hamilton

Filed Date: 7/25/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024