Edward Mercer v. David Ballard

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:12-cv-00040-JPB-DJJ. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999156491]. Mailed to: Edward Mercer. [13-6738]

Download PDF
Appeal: 13-6738 Doc: 7 Filed: 07/23/2013 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6738 EDWARD J. MERCER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN DAVID BALLARD, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (2:12-cv-00040-JPB-DJJ) Submitted: July 18, 2013 Decided: July 23, 2013 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward J. Mercer, Appellant Pro Se. Robert David Goldberg, Assistant Attorney General, Silas B. Taylor, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 13-6738 Doc: 7 Filed: 07/23/2013 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Edward J. Mercer seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting in part and declining to adopt in part the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, and dismissing as untimely all but one of Mercer’s claims in his pending 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 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). is neither a final order The order Mercer seeks to appeal nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and materials legal before contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?