Lamont Dorsey v. Jeffery Kiser

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--Motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied (FRAP 24) [1000106986-2] Originating case number: 1:17-cv-00217-TSE-JF copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000163324]. Mailed to: Lamont Dorsey. [17-6700]

Appeal: 17-6700

Doc: 10

Filed: 09/28/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6700

LAMONT DORSEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JEFFERY B. KISER, VA DOC Department,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-00217-TSE-JFA)

Submitted: September 26, 2017

Decided: September 28, 2017

Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lamont Dorsey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-6700

Doc: 10

Filed: 09/28/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Lamont Dorsey seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (2012) petition for failure to comply with the court’s order. 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, 545-47 (1949). Because Dorsey may
remedy the deficiency by refiling his petition using the correct forms, we conclude that
the order Dorsey seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
collateral order. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir.
2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67
(4th Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis 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

2