Filed: Feb. 27, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8355 CHRISTOPHER EUGENE COOK, Petitioner - Appellant, v. LEWIS SMITH, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:08-cv-00300-JAB-RAE) Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 27, 2009 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8355 CHRISTOPHER EUGENE COOK, Petitioner - Appellant, v. LEWIS SMITH, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:08-cv-00300-JAB-RAE) Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 27, 2009 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-8355
CHRISTOPHER EUGENE COOK,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LEWIS SMITH,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:08-cv-00300-JAB-RAE)
Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 27, 2009
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher Eugene Cook, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge
III, Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorneys General, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Eugene Cook seeks to appeal the district
court’s order affirming the magistrate judge’s order denying his
motion to amend his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. This
court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28
U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.
Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order
Cook seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny leave
to proceed in forma pauperis 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