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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6918 LEON QUARLES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HENRY MCMASTER,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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6918 LEON QUARLES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HENRY MCMASTER,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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Quarles..
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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 -