W. Robert Wardell, Jr. v. Andrew Mansukhani

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999997825-2] Originating case number: 0:16-cv-01135-DCN-PJG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000032102]. Mailed to: W. Robert Wardell Jr. FCI ESTILL FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 699 Estill, SC 29918-0699. [16-7672]

Appeal: 16-7672

Doc: 12

Filed: 02/28/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7672

W. ROBERT WARDELL, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ANDREW MANSUKHANI, Warden, FCI Estill,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge;
Paige Jones Gossett, Magistrate Judge. (0:16-cv-01135-DCN-PJG)

Submitted:

February 23, 2017

Decided:

February 28, 2017

Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

W. Robert Wardell, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7672

Doc: 12

Filed: 02/28/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
W. Robert Wardell, Jr., seeks to appeal two pretrial orders
issued by the magistrate judge and the district court’s order
affirming the magistrate judge’s rulings in Wardell’s 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 (2012) action.

On appeal, Wardell challenges the orders

he seeks to appeal only insofar as they deny his request to
consolidate

his

court

exercise

may

action

with

that

of

jurisdiction

28 U.S.C.

§ 1291

(2012),

collateral

orders,

28

and

U.S.C.

another

only

over

certain

§ 1292

litigant.
final

This
orders,

interlocutory

(2012);

Fed.

R.

Civ.

and
P.

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 54546 (1949).
orders

The orders Wardell seeks to appeal are neither final

nor

appealable

Accordingly,

we

deny

interlocutory

leave

to

proceed

or
in

collateral
forma

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

orders.

pauperis

and

We dispense with
contentions
this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2