Filed: Jan. 29, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7699 JOSHUA CARTER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ALFRED M. TRIPP, Lawyer, Court Appointee; CHARLES D. GRIFFITH, JR., Judge, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-01-1387-AM) Submitted: January 17, 2002 Decided: January 29, 2002 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judg
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7699 JOSHUA CARTER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ALFRED M. TRIPP, Lawyer, Court Appointee; CHARLES D. GRIFFITH, JR., Judge, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-01-1387-AM) Submitted: January 17, 2002 Decided: January 29, 2002 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7699
JOSHUA CARTER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
ALFRED M. TRIPP, Lawyer, Court Appointee;
CHARLES D. GRIFFITH, JR., Judge,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District
Judge. (CA-01-1387-AM)
Submitted: January 17, 2002 Decided: January 29, 2002
Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joshua Carter, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Joshua Carter appeals from the district’s court order dismiss-
ing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001) complaint
without prejudice because he failed to exhaust available state
court remedies. Because Carter may refile this action after
exhausting state remedies, his appeal is interlocutory and not
subject to appellate review under Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar
Workers Local 392,
10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accord-
ingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a
certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. 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