Filed: Dec. 20, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7424 LEROY JOSEPH KELLY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. PAUL COPENHAVEN, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:13-cv-00318-REP) Submitted: December 17, 2013 Decided: December 20, 2013 Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leroy Joseph Kelly, Ap
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7424 LEROY JOSEPH KELLY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. PAUL COPENHAVEN, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:13-cv-00318-REP) Submitted: December 17, 2013 Decided: December 20, 2013 Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leroy Joseph Kelly, App..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7424
LEROY JOSEPH KELLY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
PAUL COPENHAVEN, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:13-cv-00318-REP)
Submitted: December 17, 2013 Decided: December 20, 2013
Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Leroy Joseph Kelly, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Leroy Joseph Kelly seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(2006) petition for failure to abide by the order of the court.
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, 545-46 (1949). The
order Kelly seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Kelly may be able
to save his petition by amending it to comply with the district
court’s order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local
Union 392,
10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). 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 this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2