Lamarr Dingle v. Director DOC


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [1000207397-2]; denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis [1000252885-2] Originating case number: 1:16-cv-00023-GBL-IDD. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000272693]. Mailed to: L. Dingle. [17-7140]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-7140 Doc: 17 Filed: 04/09/2018 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7140 LAMARR BARTHELL DINGLE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:16-cv-00023-GBL-IDD) Submitted: March 19, 2018 Decided: April 9, 2018 Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lamarr Barthell Dingle, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 17-7140 Doc: 17 Filed: 04/09/2018 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Lamarr Barthell Dingle seeks to appeal the district court’s interlocutory order denying his motion to subpoena a witness in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) proceeding. 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 Dingle seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Dingle’s motion to appoint counsel, 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 * Dingle’s appeal of the district court’s judgment dismissing his § 2254 petition, No. 17-7107, was remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of determining whether the notice of appeal should be deemed timely. If the appeal is found to be timely, Dingle may challenge the discovery ruling at issue in this case, as well as the final judgment on his § 2254 petition, when the appeal is returned to this court. 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?