Filed: Jun. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6437 ROBERT EARL DILLARD, Petitioner - Appellant, v. SCOTT LEWIS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Mary Gordon Baker, Magistrate Judge. (2:18-cv-03103-JFA) Submitted: June 13, 2019 Decided: June 18, 2019 Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert E
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6437 ROBERT EARL DILLARD, Petitioner - Appellant, v. SCOTT LEWIS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Mary Gordon Baker, Magistrate Judge. (2:18-cv-03103-JFA) Submitted: June 13, 2019 Decided: June 18, 2019 Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Ea..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6437
ROBERT EARL DILLARD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
SCOTT LEWIS, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Mary Gordon Baker, Magistrate Judge. (2:18-cv-03103-JFA)
Submitted: June 13, 2019 Decided: June 18, 2019
Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Earl Dillard, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Earl Dillard has filed a notice of appeal in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)
petition pending in the district court. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28
U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337
U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). Because the district court has not entered a final order or 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
2