Darrin Holston v. Leroy Cartledge

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis [1000240174-2] Originating case number: 9:17-cv-00899-HMH-BM. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000269286]. Mailed to: Darrin Holston. [18-6040]

Appeal: 18-6040

Doc: 8

Filed: 04/03/2018

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6040

DARRIN D. HOLSTON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LEROY CARTLEDGE,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (9:17-cv-00899-HMH-BM)

Submitted: March 29, 2018

Decided: April 3, 2018

Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darrin D. Holston, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General,
Caroline M. Scrantom, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH
CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 18-6040

Doc: 8

Filed: 04/03/2018

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Darrin D. Holston seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate
judge’s recommendation, denying Holston’s motion to stay the proceedings without
prejudice, and denying Holston’s motion to amend his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as
moot. 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
Holston seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral
order. 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