Garraghty v. Hinton ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7692
KENNETH N. HAMMOND; CHARLES EDWARD FORRESTER,
JR.; PHILLIP DUCKETT,
Petitioners,
versus
DAVID A. GARRAGHTY, Warden; DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA AGENCIES; UNITED STATES PAROLE
COMMISSION; ANTHONY WILLIAMS, Mayor; EDWARD F.
REILLY, JR., Chairman, United States Parole
Commission; ODIE WASHINGTON, in his official
capacity as Director, D. C. Department of
Corrections; JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondents - Appellees,
versus
KENNETH A. HINTON,
Movant - Appellant,
ORLANDO R. WILLIS BEY,
Movant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief
District Judge. (CA-02-864-AM)
Submitted: February 10, 2003 Decided: March 10, 2003
2
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth A. Hinton, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly C. Matthews, OFFICE
OF CORPORATION COUNSEL, Washington, D.C.; Richard Parker, Major
Francis Patrick King, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
3
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth A. Hinton seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his motion to join an action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000).
This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28
U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.
Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order
Hinton seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order. See Bhd. of R.R. Trainmen v.
Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 331 U.S. 519, 524-25 (1947) (finding
that denial of motion for permissive intervention not immediately
appealable). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. We deny Hinton’s motion to expedite as moot. 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
4