Jason Scott v. Warden J.T. Shartle


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999837519-2], denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999822943-2]; denying Motion for injunctive relief pending appeal (FRAP 8) [999822942-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999822938-2] Originating case number: 8:16-cv-00364-TDC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999915321]. Mailed to: Jason T. Scott UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY P. O. Box 24550 Tucson, AZ 85734-0000. [16-6653]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-6653 Doc: 18 Filed: 08/23/2016 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6653 JASON SCOTT, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN J. T. SHARTLE, named as FCC Warden; SUSAN G. MCCLINTOCK, named as USP Warden, Tucson, AZ; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:16-cv-00364-TDC) Submitted: August 18, 2016 Decided: August 23, 2016 Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jason T. Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-6653 Doc: 18 Filed: 08/23/2016 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Jason Scott seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying several preliminary motions and setting the schedule for submissions in Scott’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. court may exercise jurisdiction only over final This 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 Scott seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis; deny Scott’s motion for injunctive relief pending appeal and his petition for a writ of mandamus or, alternatively, for default judgment; 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 * Scott asserts in his petition for a writ of mandamus that the district court has unduly delayed ruling on his § 2254 petition. Our review of the present record reveals no such delay. 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?