Opinion

Johnathan Lee X Smith v. L.M. Saunders, Warden Virginia Parole Board

  • 98 F.3d 1335
  • 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 40099
  • 1996 WL 570601
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
Oct 3, 1996
Status
Unpublished
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 22.1%

The opinion

98 F.3d 1335

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Johnathan Lee X SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

L.M. SAUNDERS, Warden; Virginia Parole Board, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 96-6111.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Oct. 3, 1996.

Submitted Sept. 20, 1996.

Decided Oct. 3, 1996.

Johnathan Lee X Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Elizabeth Shea, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders dismissing without prejudice, his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), as amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, and denying his motion for reconsideration. The district court's dismissal without prejudice is not appealable at this time, given the fact that Appellant could save his complaint through amendment. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers' Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.1993). This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory order.

2

We deny a certificate of probable cause and dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. Further, we deny Appellant's motion for release on bail pending appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.