Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Coke v. Johnson, 05-6411 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-6411 Visitors: 531
Filed: Aug. 24, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6411 KIRKLAND AUGUSTUS COKE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. James E. Bradberry, Magistrate Judge. (CA-04-362-2) Submitted: August 18, 2005 Decided: August 24, 2005 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublis
More
                               UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 05-6411



KIRKLAND AUGUSTUS COKE,

                                                Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


GENE M. JOHNSON, Director       of   the   Virginia
Department of Corrections,

                                                 Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. James E. Bradberry, Magistrate
Judge. (CA-04-362-2)


Submitted:   August 18, 2005                  Decided:   August 24, 2005


Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


William P. Robinson, Jr., for Appellant. Kathleen Beatty Martin,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

          Kirkland Augustus Coke seeks to appeal the magistrate

judge’s report and recommendation to deny his petition for habeas

corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).       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 report and recommendation of

the magistrate judge is neither a final order nor an appealable

interlocutory or collateral order.    Accordingly, we 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 in the

decisional process.



                                                         DISMISSED




                              - 2 -

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer