US v. Dickinson Adionser
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:03-cr-00081-HCM-JEB-1,2:10-cv-00085-HCM-DEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999926012].. [16-6357]
Appeal: 16-6357
Doc: 7
Filed: 09/09/2016
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6357
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DICKINSON NORMAN ADIONSER, a/k/a D.C. Black,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (2:03-cr-00081-HCM-JEB-1; 2:10-cv-00085HCM-DEM)
Submitted:
August 31, 2016
Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.
WYNN,
Circuit
Decided:
Judges,
and
September 9, 2016
HAMILTON,
Senior
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dickinson Norman Adionser, Appellant Pro Se.
Darryl James
Mitchell, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-6357
Doc: 7
Filed: 09/09/2016
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Dickinson
Norman
Adionser
seeks
to
appeal
the
district
court’s orders advising Adionser that he must, within 30 days,
choose between deleting his successive habeas claims from his
Rule
60(b)
motion
or
having
successive habeas motion.
his
entire
motion
treated
as
a
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
orders
Adionser
seeks
to
appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or
collateral orders.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack
of jurisdiction.
facts
and
materials
legal
before
We dispense with oral argument because the
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?