Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Antonio Herrera v. Harold Clarke, 20-6481 (2020)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 20-6481 Visitors: 9
Filed: Sep. 29, 2020
Latest Update: Sep. 29, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6481 ANTONIO MARCO HERRERA, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’ Grady, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cv-01301-LO-JFA) Submitted: September 24, 2020 Decided: September 29, 2020 Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curi
More
                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 20-6481


ANTONIO MARCO HERRERA,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE,

                    Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Liam O’ Grady, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cv-01301-LO-JFA)


Submitted: September 24, 2020                               Decided: September 29, 2020


Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Antonio Marco Herrera, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Antonio Marco Herrera seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying without

prejudice his motion to appoint counsel in his pending 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action. This court

may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory

and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.

Loan Corp., 
337 U.S. 541
, 545-46 (1949). The order Herrera seeks to appeal is neither a

final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny Herrera’s motion for appointment of counsel on

appeal and injunctive relief. 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


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