Kenneth Newkirk v. Department of Correction

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999857791-2]. Originating case number: 3:16-cv-00265-HEH-RCY. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999915269]. Mailed to: Kenneth H. Newkirk. [16-6738]

Appeal: 16-6738

Doc: 10

Filed: 08/23/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6738

KENNETH NEWKIRK,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Director,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Roderick Charles Young,
Magistrate Judge. (3:16-cv-00265-HEH-RCY)

Submitted:

August 18, 2016

Decided:

August 23, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth H. Newkirk, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6738

Doc: 10

Filed: 08/23/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Newkirk seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order
conditionally filing Newkirk’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition,
directing the clerk to take certain actions, and denying without
prejudice

Newkirk’s

request

for

an

injunction

and

motion

to

dismiss.

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 Newkirk seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

Accordingly, we

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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