Filed: Aug. 14, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6236 LAWRENCE E. HAYMES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. James E. Bradberry, Magistrate Judge. (CA-00-795-2) Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 14, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence E. Haymes, Appellant P
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6236 LAWRENCE E. HAYMES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. James E. Bradberry, Magistrate Judge. (CA-00-795-2) Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 14, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence E. Haymes, Appellant Pr..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6236
LAWRENCE E. HAYMES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD J. ANGELONE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. James E. Bradberry, Magistrate
Judge. (CA-00-795-2)
Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 14, 2001
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lawrence E. Haymes, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Lawrence E. Haymes appeals from the magistrate judge’s order*
denying his motion to amend his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &
Supp. 2000) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdic-
tion because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise
jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and
certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 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
*
The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate
judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994).
2