Filed: Jun. 17, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6314 RAY THOMAS MCCRAY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-668) Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 17, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ray Thomas McCray, Appellant Pro Se.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6314 RAY THOMAS MCCRAY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-668) Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 17, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ray Thomas McCray, Appellant Pro Se. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6314
RAY THOMAS MCCRAY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GENE M. JOHNSON,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CA-02-668)
Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 17, 2003
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ray Thomas McCray, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ray Thomas McCray seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition without prejudice
because he failed to pay the filing fee. Because McCray can refile
his petition and pay the requisite filing fee, his appeal is
interlocutory and not subject to appellate review under Domino
Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local 392,
10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th
Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability
and dismiss the 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