Filed: Aug. 12, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6752 JOHN PAUL TURNER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID S. KUYKENDALL, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-96-409-R) Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 12, 1996 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Paul Tur
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6752 JOHN PAUL TURNER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID S. KUYKENDALL, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-96-409-R) Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 12, 1996 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Paul Turn..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6752
JOHN PAUL TURNER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
DAVID S. KUYKENDALL,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge.
(CA-96-409-R)
Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 12, 1996
Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Paul Turner, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court orders dismissing his
habeas corpus petition without prejudice for failure to set forth
coherent claims and denying his motion for reconsideration. We dis-
miss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the orders are not
appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and
collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);
Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541 (1949). The
orders here appealed are neither final orders nor appealable inter-
locutory or collateral orders.
We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal
as interlocutory. 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.
The motion for hearing in banc is denied.
DISMISSED
2