Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Holmes v. Wilson, 02-7339 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-7339 Visitors: 26
Filed: Dec. 20, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7339 BRUCE JEROME HOLMES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus J. C. WILSON, Superintendent, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-577-1) Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 20, 2002 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bruce Jerome
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 02-7339



BRUCE JEROME HOLMES,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


J. C. WILSON, Superintendent,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CA-02-577-1)


Submitted:   December 16, 2002         Decided:     December 20, 2002


Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Bruce Jerome Holmes, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

       Bruce Jerome Holmes seeks to appeal the district court’s order

affirming the magistrate judge’s order denying his motion to hold

the case in abeyance.       This court may exercise jurisdiction only

over    final    orders,   28     U.S.C.   §   1291   (2000),   and     certain

interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed.

R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 
337 U.S. 541
 (1949).      The order Holmes seeks to appeal is neither a final

order    nor    an   appealable    interlocutory      or   collateral   order.

Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a

certificate of appealability, and 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

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.




                                                                      DISMISSED




                                       2

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer