Filed: Feb. 27, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7868 ROBERT LEE ELMORE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus BARNEY LLOYD, Warden of Tyger River Correc- tional Institution; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attor- ney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-01-956-9-19RB) Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 27, 2002 Before WI
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7868 ROBERT LEE ELMORE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus BARNEY LLOYD, Warden of Tyger River Correc- tional Institution; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attor- ney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-01-956-9-19RB) Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 27, 2002 Before WID..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7868
ROBERT LEE ELMORE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
BARNEY LLOYD, Warden of Tyger River Correc-
tional Institution; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attor-
ney General of the State of South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
(CA-01-956-9-19RB)
Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 27, 2002
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Lee Elmore, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Robert Lee Elmore seeks to appeal from the district court’s
order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate
judge and dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254
(West 1994 & Supp. 2001) without prejudice because he failed to
exhaust state court remedies. Because Elmore can exhaust his state
court remedies and re-file his petition, his appeal of the dis-
missal without prejudice is interlocutory and not subject to ap-
pellate review under Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local 392,
10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we deny a cer-
tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2