Thomas Farmer v. R. Wolfe ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • USCA4 Appeal: 22-6166      Doc: 13         Filed: 03/31/2023     Pg: 1 of 2
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 22-6166
    THOMAS LEE FARMER,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    R. M. WOLFE, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
    Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:21-cv-00147-JPB-JPM)
    Submitted: February 13, 2023                                      Decided: March 31, 2023
    Before THACKER, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Thomas Lee Farmer, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    USCA4 Appeal: 22-6166         Doc: 13        Filed: 03/31/2023      Pg: 2 of 2
    PER CURIAM:
    Thomas Lee Farmer seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     petition and denying reconsideration. This court may exercise jurisdiction
    only over final orders, 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 
    28 U.S.C. § 1292
    ; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 
    337 U.S. 541
    ,
    545-46 (1949). “Ordinarily, a district court order is not final until it has resolved all claims
    as to all parties.” Porter v. Zook, 
    803 F.3d 694
    , 696 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation
    marks omitted).
    Our review of the record reveals that the district court did not adjudicate all of the
    claims raised in the § 2241 petition. Id. at 696-97. Specifically, the court did not address
    Farmer’s challenges to the validity of his 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (c) conviction and his 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (e) sentence enhancement. We conclude that the orders Farmer seeks to appeal are
    neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we
    dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand to the district court for consideration
    of the unresolved claims. 
    Id. at 699
    .
    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 AND REMANDED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22-6166

Filed Date: 3/31/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/1/2023