Filed: May 23, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6298 DUNCAN VICTOR AYEMERE IDOKOGI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Maryland Attorney General, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-01- 4243-L) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 23, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by u
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6298 DUNCAN VICTOR AYEMERE IDOKOGI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Maryland Attorney General, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-01- 4243-L) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 23, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by un..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6298
DUNCAN VICTOR AYEMERE IDOKOGI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General; J.
JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Maryland Attorney General,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-01-
4243-L)
Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 23, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Duncan Victor Ayemere Idokogi, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Duncan Victor Ayemere Idokogi appeals the district court’s
order transferring his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
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. See Technosteel,
L.L.C. v. Beers Constr. Co.,
271 F.2d 151, 153-54 & n.2 (4th Cir.
2001).
We 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