Filed: Jul. 28, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7822 ANTHONY EUGENE SUGG, Petitioner - Appellant, versus SHERWOOD R. MCCABE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-661-5-H) Submitted: July 19, 2004 Decided: July 28, 2004 Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Eugene Sugg, Appellant P
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7822 ANTHONY EUGENE SUGG, Petitioner - Appellant, versus SHERWOOD R. MCCABE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-661-5-H) Submitted: July 19, 2004 Decided: July 28, 2004 Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Eugene Sugg, Appellant Pr..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7822
ANTHONY EUGENE SUGG,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
SHERWOOD R. MCCABE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
District Judge. (CA-03-661-5-H)
Submitted: July 19, 2004 Decided: July 28, 2004
Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Eugene Sugg, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Eugene Sugg appeals the district court’s order
directing the clerk to continue case management regarding Sugg’s 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction because the district court’s order is not appealable.
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 district
court’s order is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we 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
- 2 -