Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Kevin Herriott v. Wayne McCabe, 19-6878 (2019)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 19-6878 Visitors: 23
Filed: Oct. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6878 KEVIN HERRIOTT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WAYNE MCCABE, Warden, Kershaw Correctional Institution, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. David C. Norton, District Judge. (6:19-cv-00803-DCN-KFM) Submitted: October 15, 2019 Decided: October 18, 2019 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished
More
                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 19-6878


KEVIN HERRIOTT,

                    Plaintiff - Appellant,

             v.

WAYNE MCCABE, Warden, Kershaw Correctional Institution,

                    Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Greenville. David C. Norton, District Judge. (6:19-cv-00803-DCN-KFM)


Submitted: October 15, 2019                                   Decided: October 18, 2019


Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Kevin Herriott, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Kevin Herriott appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s

recommendation and dismissing some, but not all, of the claims raised in Herriott’s 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. 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). The order Herriott 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 this 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