Mitchell v. Smith , 115 F. App'x 642 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-6868
    EMORY MITCHELL,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    RICHARD   SMITH,   Warden;  HENRY   MCMASTER,
    Attorney General of South Carolina,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Beaufort.    Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
    Judge. (CA-03-2529-9-20BG)
    Submitted:   December 9, 20004         Decided:     December 15, 2004
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Emory Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy
    Attorney General, John William McIntosh, Assistant Attorney
    General, Samuel Creighton Waters, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
    SOUTH CAROLINA, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Emory Mitchell seeks to appeal the district court’s
    April 8, 2004, order, denying his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000) petition,
    because he failed to object to the magistrate judge’s report and
    recommendation.       Because Mitchell informed the court that he did
    not receive the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the
    district court granted Mitchell’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion,
    vacated its April 8th order, and reissued the recommendation so
    that Mitchell could object.         Thus, there has been no final order
    entered in the case.       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 Mitchell seeks to appeal is neither a final
    order   nor     an   appealable    interlocutory      or   collateral   order.
    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 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
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-6868

Citation Numbers: 115 F. App'x 642

Judges: Niemeyer, Williams, Traxler

Filed Date: 12/15/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024