U.S. v. FOSTER, 13-7407. (2014)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20140317078
Visitors: 12
Filed: Mar. 17, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 17, 2014
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM. Kenneth Lee Foster seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion to amend his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2012) motion. 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). The order Foster seeks to
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM. Kenneth Lee Foster seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion to amend his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2012) motion. 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). The order Foster seeks to a..
More
UNPUBLISHED
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Kenneth Lee Foster seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion to amend his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. 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). The order Foster seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Bridges v. Dep't of Md. State Police, 441 F.3d 197, 206 (4th Cir. 2006) (stating that denial of motion to amend not immediately appealable); In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 287-89 (4th Cir. 2005) (discussing cumulative finality). 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.
Source: Leagle
