Filed: Mar. 07, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7372 TROY ATERA BROWN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-479-7) Submitted: December 5, 2000 Decided: March 7, 2001 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. T
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7372 TROY ATERA BROWN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-479-7) Submitted: December 5, 2000 Decided: March 7, 2001 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tr..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7372
TROY ATERA BROWN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
Judge. (CA-00-479-7)
Submitted: December 5, 2000 Decided: March 7, 2001
Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Troy Atera Brown, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Troy Atera Brown appeals the district court’s order dismissing
his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.
2000) without prejudice for failure to comply with a district court
order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Because Brown may reinstate his
suit by merely providing information requested by the district
court, we lack jurisdiction to decide this appeal. See Domino
Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,
10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67
(4th Cir. 1993). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction
and deny a certificate of appealability. 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 in the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2