US v. Stephen Robinette

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cr-00400-WO-1,1:17-cv-01132. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000259077]. Mailed to: Stephen Robinette. [18-6024]

Appeal: 18-6024

Doc: 14

Filed: 03/16/2018

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6024

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STEPHEN ARTHUR ROBINETTE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:11-cr-00400-WO-1; 1:17-cv01132)

Submitted: March 13, 2018

Decided: March 16, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen Arthur Robinette, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Anand P.
Ramaswamy, Assistant United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 18-6024

Doc: 14

Filed: 03/16/2018

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Stephen Arthur Robinette seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation recommending that his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion be dismissed
without prejudice. 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 Robinette seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order. See In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 288 (4th Cir. 2005);
Haney v. Addison, 175 F.3d 1217, 1219 (10th Cir. 1999); Aluminum Co. of Am. v. U.S.
Envtl. Prot. Agency, 663 F.2d 499, 501-02 (4th Cir. 1981). 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