Gerlinski v. Hinebaugh ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-7760
SUSAN GERLINSKI,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
FULTON LEE HINEBAUGH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District
Judge. (CA-98-152-1)
Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 19, 1999
Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Fulton Lee Hinebaugh, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Fulton Lee Hinebaugh appeals the district court’s order deny-
ing his motion for an extension of time to reply to the Respon-
dent’s answer to his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
1994 & Supp. 1998). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction
because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise
jurisdiction only over final orders, see 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994),
and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. See 28 U.S.C. §
1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan
Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a
final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal
as interlocutory. 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
2