Filed: Mar. 20, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6112 RODNEY LEE RODIS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA; WARDEN, FCI-BUTNER, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, District Judge. (7:11-cv-00544-MFU-RSB) Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 20, 2012 Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpubl
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6112 RODNEY LEE RODIS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA; WARDEN, FCI-BUTNER, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, District Judge. (7:11-cv-00544-MFU-RSB) Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 20, 2012 Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpubli..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6112
RODNEY LEE RODIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA; WARDEN, FCI-BUTNER,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, District
Judge. (7:11-cv-00544-MFU-RSB)
Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 20, 2012
Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rodney Lee Rodis, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rodney Lee Rodis seeks to appeal the magistrate
judge’s order outlining procedural and clerical directives.
This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28
U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral
orders, 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). The
order Rodis seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we
deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis 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