Morris Speight-Bey v. Charles William


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00177-IMK-JES Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999829948]. Mailed to: Morris Speight-Bey. [16-6324]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-6324 Doc: 5 Filed: 05/23/2016 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6324 MORRIS SPEIGHT-BEY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. CHARLES WILLIAMS, Warden, Alien Property Custodian, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (1:15-cv-00177-IMK-JES) Submitted: May 18, 2016 Decided: May 23, 2016 Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Morris Speight-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Helen Campbell Altmeyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia; Erin K. Reisenweber, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-6324 Doc: 5 Filed: 05/23/2016 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Morris Speight-Bey seeks to appeal the district court’s order directing a response to his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (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 SpeightBey seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss the 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

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?