Filed: Nov. 13, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7961 HAMILTON H. SWART, III, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-00911-TSE) Submitted: October 24, 2007 Decided: November 13, 2007 Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hamilton H
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7961 HAMILTON H. SWART, III, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-00911-TSE) Submitted: October 24, 2007 Decided: November 13, 2007 Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hamilton H...
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7961
HAMILTON H. SWART, III,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GENE M. JOHNSON, Director,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:06-cv-00911-TSE)
Submitted: October 24, 2007 Decided: November 13, 2007
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hamilton H. Swart, III, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Hamilton H. Swart, III, seeks to appeal the district
court’s order advising him that he had the right to file affidavits
or other material contesting the application of the statute of
limitations in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) proceeding. 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 Swart 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 -