James Houck v. Warden

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--Motion for transcript at government expense is denied [1000129346-2] Originating case number: 8:17-cv-00903-GJH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000163304]. Mailed to: James Houck. [17-6911]

Appeal: 17-6911

Doc: 14

Filed: 09/28/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6911

MR. JAMES E. HOUCK,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, Western Correctional Institution,
Defendant - Appellee,
STATE OF MARYLAND; BRIAN E. FROSH, The Attorney General of the State
of Maryland,
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (8:17-cv-00903-GJH)

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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Houck, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Appeal: 17-6911

Doc: 14

Filed: 09/28/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 17-6911

Doc: 14

Filed: 09/28/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
James Houck seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motions for
appointment of counsel, to correct his sentence, and for a preliminary hearing. 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 Houck seeks to
appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
Accordingly, we deny Houck leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny his motion for
transcripts at government expense, 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

3