Edward Marcano v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [1000124097-2] Originating case number: 1:17-cv-00427-TSE-IDD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000177437]. Mailed to: Edward Marcano. [17-6828]

Appeal: 17-6828

Doc: 10

Filed: 10/20/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6828

EDWARD MARCANO,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
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-00427-TSE-IDD)

Submitted: October 17, 2017

Decided: October 20, 2017

Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Marcano, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-6828

Doc: 10

Filed: 10/20/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Edward Marcano seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee or to
move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. In his notice of appeal, Marcano provided
evidence that he did submit the requisite filing fee. 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 Marcano 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, 623-24 (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, dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and remand the
case to the district court with instructions to give Marcano an opportunity to reinstate his
case.

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 AND REMANDED

2