Jason Scott v. Warden J.T. Shartle

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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