Shapat Nabaya v. U. S. Attorney

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion(s) disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis [1000254063-2]; denying Motion to compel [1000276131-2]. Originating case number: 3:17-cv-00731-MHL-RCY. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000318969]. Mailed to: Shapat Nabaya. [18-6181]

Appeal: 18-6181

Doc: 11

Filed: 06/26/2018

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6181

SHAPAT AHDAWAN NABAYA, a/k/a Norman Abbott,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
U.S. ATTORNEY,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, Magistrate Judge. (3:17-cv-00731-MHL-RCY)

Submitted: June 21, 2018

Decided: June 26, 2018

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shapat Ahdawan Nabaya, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 18-6181

Doc: 11

Filed: 06/26/2018

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Shapat Ahdawan Nabaya seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order directing
him to file his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition on the proper form. After Nabaya filed
the proper form and noted his appeal, the district court dismissed his § 2241 petition
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).
When a notice of appeal is premature, the entry of final judgment can cure the resulting
jurisdictional defect under the doctrine of cumulative finality but only if the order being
appealed could have been certified for intermediate appeal under Rule 54(b). In re
Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 287-89 (4th Cir. 2005); Equip. Fin. Grp. v. Traverse Computer
Brokers, 973 F.2d 345, 347 (4th Cir. 1992).
The order Nabaya seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order.

Further, because the district court could not have

certified the challenged order for immediate appeal under Rule 54(b), the cumulative
finality doctrine does not apply.

Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, deny Nabaya’s motion to compel, 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