Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Quarles v. State of SC, 04-6918 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-6918 Visitors: 16
Filed: Oct. 14, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6918 LEON QUARLES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HENRY MCMASTER, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA-03-3374-25BD) Submitted: October 7, 2004 Decided: October 14, 2004 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leon Quarle
More
                               UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 04-6918



LEON QUARLES,

                                                Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HENRY MCMASTER,

                                               Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(CA-03-3374-25BD)


Submitted:   October 7, 2004                 Decided:   October 14, 2004


Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Leon Quarles, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Leon Quarles seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s

report and recommendation on his petition for habeas corpus filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).             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 report and recommendation of the

magistrate    judge   is   neither   a   final   order   nor   an   appealable

interlocutory    or   collateral     order.      Accordingly,       we   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