Tavon P. Singletary v. State of Maryland


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:16-cv-03591-JFM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000124486]. Mailed to: Tavon P. Singletary NORTH BRANCH CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 14100 McMullen Highway, SW Cumberland, MD 21502. [17-6601]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-6601 Doc: 7 Filed: 07/25/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6601 TAVON P. SINGLETARY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF MARYLAND; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-03591-JFM) Submitted: July 20, 2017 Decided: July 25, 2017 Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tavon P. Singletary, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 17-6601 Doc: 7 Filed: 07/25/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Tavon P. Singletary seeks to appeal an order of the district court dated April 27, 2017. 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). Our review of the docket does not reveal an order entered on that date. To the extent that Singletary seeks to appeal the district court’s orders ordering him to file a response to the Respondent’s motion to dismiss or returning improperly filed discovery motions, those orders are not final nor are they immediately appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Moreover, although the district court dismissed Singletary’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition after he filed his notice of appeal, his premature notice of appeal cannot be saved by the doctrine of cumulative finality. In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 288 (4th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we 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 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?