Filed: Nov. 27, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6792 ALAN DUANE ROSE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN LARRY CARTLEDGE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Kaymani Daniels West, Magistrate Judge. (5:16-cv-03394-BHH-KDW) Submitted: November 21, 2017 Decided: November 27, 2017 Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam op
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6792 ALAN DUANE ROSE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN LARRY CARTLEDGE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Kaymani Daniels West, Magistrate Judge. (5:16-cv-03394-BHH-KDW) Submitted: November 21, 2017 Decided: November 27, 2017 Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opi..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6792
ALAN DUANE ROSE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN LARRY CARTLEDGE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Orangeburg. Kaymani Daniels West, Magistrate Judge. (5:16-cv-03394-BHH-KDW)
Submitted: November 21, 2017 Decided: November 27, 2017
Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alan Duane Rose, Appellant Pro Se. Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alan Duane Rose seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order granting his request
to proceed in forma pauperis and directing the respondent to file an answer to the
petition. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291
(2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The
order Rose seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Rose’s motion for review 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 this court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2