Filed: Jun. 17, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6435 EDGHILL LEO FRANCIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-02-129-AM) Submitted: May 24, 2002 Decided: June 17, 2002 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edghill Leo Francis, Appellant Pro
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6435 EDGHILL LEO FRANCIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-02-129-AM) Submitted: May 24, 2002 Decided: June 17, 2002 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edghill Leo Francis, Appellant Pro S..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6435
EDGHILL LEO FRANCIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CA-02-129-AM)
Submitted: May 24, 2002 Decided: June 17, 2002
Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edghill Leo Francis, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Edghill Leo Francis appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition, in which he
challenged conditions of his confinement, without prejudice.
Because Francis may amend his complaint to proceed under 42
U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) rather than § 2241, the district
court’s dismissal without prejudice is not a final order and is not
subject to appellate review. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar
Workers Local Union 392,
10 F.2d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).
Therefore, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this
appeal. 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