Filed: May 24, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6191 MILFORD T. WASHINGTON, Petitioner – Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia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. (2:10-cv-00089-RBS-TEM) Submitted: May 19, 2011 Decided: May 24, 2011 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6191 MILFORD T. WASHINGTON, Petitioner – Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia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. (2:10-cv-00089-RBS-TEM) Submitted: May 19, 2011 Decided: May 24, 2011 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by u..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6191
MILFORD T. WASHINGTON,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the 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. (2:10-cv-00089-RBS-TEM)
Submitted: May 19, 2011 Decided: May 24, 2011
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit
Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Milford Washington, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Milford T. Washington seeks to appeal the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation to dismiss his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (2006) petition. This court may exercise jurisdiction
only over final orders, see 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain
interlocutory and collateral orders, see 28 U.S.C. § 1292
(2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan
Corp.,
337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). Because the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation is neither a final order nor
an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, 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 the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
2