Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Crawford v. Johnson, 05-7060 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-7060 Visitors: 39
Filed: Oct. 31, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7060 JONATHAN CRAWFORD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Tommy E. Miller, Magistrate Judge. (CA-04-725) Submitted: October 20, 2005 Decided: October 31, 2005 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublis
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-7060



JONATHAN CRAWFORD,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


GENE M. JOHNSON,      Virginia   Department   of
Corrections,

                                               Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Tommy E. Miller, Magistrate
Judge. (CA-04-725)


Submitted:   October 20, 2005             Decided:   October 31, 2005


Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jonathan Crawford, Appellant Pro Se.      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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

             Jonathan Crawford seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s

report and recommendation to the district court in Crawford’s 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 Crawford 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 -

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