Filed: May 30, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6191 ERIC MARIO BYERS, Petitioner, v. LANE, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-01290-CMH-MSN) Submitted: May 24, 2018 Decided: May 30, 2018 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Mario Byers, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not bi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6191 ERIC MARIO BYERS, Petitioner, v. LANE, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-01290-CMH-MSN) Submitted: May 24, 2018 Decided: May 30, 2018 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Mario Byers, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not bin..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6191
ERIC MARIO BYERS,
Petitioner,
v.
LANE,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-01290-CMH-MSN)
Submitted: May 24, 2018 Decided: May 30, 2018
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric Mario Byers, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eric Mario Byers petitions for permission to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)
(2012) the district court’s order denying without prejudice his motion to subpoena
witnesses. 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). Byers
was instructed that the interlocutory order to be reviewed must be certified by the district
court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §1292(b). Because the order has not been certified
and Byers does not seek to withdraw his petition for permission to appeal, 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