Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

La'Mar v. Johnson, 04-7167 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-7167 Visitors: 12
Filed: Oct. 22, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7167 DEREK STANTON LA’MAR, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. James E. Bradberry, Magistrate Judge. (CA-04-368-2) Submitted: October 14, 2004 Decided: October 22, 2004 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished pe
More
                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 04-7167



DEREK STANTON LA’MAR,

                                                Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


GENE M. JOHNSON, Director       of   the   Virginia
Department of Corrections,

                                                 Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. James E. Bradberry, Magistrate
Judge. (CA-04-368-2)


Submitted:   October 14, 2004               Decided:   October 22, 2004


Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Derek Stanton La’Mar, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Derek Stanton La’Mar seeks to appeal the magistrate

judge’s order denying his request for DNA evidence and his motion

for appointment of counsel.     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 La’Mar seeks to appeal is neither a final

order   nor   an   appealable   interlocutory   or   collateral   order.

Accordingly, we 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