Filed: Jan. 07, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6994 HENRY ROBINSON, III, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LLOYD D. WATERS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-97-1221-WMN) Submitted: December 18, 1997 Decided: January 7, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Robinson, III, Ap
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6994 HENRY ROBINSON, III, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LLOYD D. WATERS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-97-1221-WMN) Submitted: December 18, 1997 Decided: January 7, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Robinson, III, App..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6994
HENRY ROBINSON, III,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
LLOYD D. WATERS, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge.
(CA-97-1221-WMN)
Submitted: December 18, 1997 Decided: January 7, 1998
Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henry Robinson, III, Appellant Pro Se. Annabelle Louise Lisic,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court's grant of an extension
of time to the defendants below. We dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may
exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291
(1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.
Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither
a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
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.
DISMISSED
2