Filed: Sep. 24, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7057 STEPHAN DAVID BROOKS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus NORA HUNT, Superintendent; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-325-3-2-MU) Submitted: September 11, 2003 Decided: September 24, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpubl
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7057 STEPHAN DAVID BROOKS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus NORA HUNT, Superintendent; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-325-3-2-MU) Submitted: September 11, 2003 Decided: September 24, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpubli..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7057
STEPHAN DAVID BROOKS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
NORA HUNT, Superintendent; STATE OF NORTH
CAROLINA,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CA-03-325-3-2-MU)
Submitted: September 11, 2003 Decided: September 24, 2003
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephan David Brooks, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Stephan David Brooks seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his “Motion for Immediate Order Staying the State
Court Judgment,” denying his “Motion for Immediate Order Setting
Petitioner at his Liberty,” and ordering the North Carolina
Attorney General to respond to his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)
petition. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and
collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);
Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541 (1949). The
order Brooks seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. 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