Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Johnathan Smith v. Gene Johnson, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Johnathan Lee X Smith's appeal of a district court order that dismissed some but not all of the claims in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The court found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court order was neither a final order resolving all claims, nor was it an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. As such, the court denied Smith's request to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-11-02 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-6481

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Johnathan Lee X Smith's appeal of a district court order that dismissed some but not all of the claims in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The court found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court order was neither a final order resolving all claims, nor was it an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. As such, the court denied Smith's request to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    6 views2 pages

    Johnathan Smith v. Gene Johnson, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Johnathan Lee X Smith's appeal of a district court order that dismissed some but not all of the claims in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The court found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court order was neither a final order resolving all claims, nor was it an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. As such, the court denied Smith's request to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 11-6481

    JOHNATHAN LEE X SMITH,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    GENE M. JOHNSON, Director,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    James R. Spencer, Chief
    District Judge. (3:09-cv-00653-JRS)

    Submitted:

    October 6, 2011

    Decided:

    November 2, 2011

    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Johnathan Lee X Smith, Appellant Pro Se.


    Donald Eldridge
    Jeffrey, III, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia,
    for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Johnathan Lee X Smith seeks to appeal the district
    courts order dismissing some but not all of his claims filed
    with

    his

    28

    U.S.C.

    2254

    (2006)

    petition.

    This

    court

    may

    exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. 1291


    (2006),

    and

    certain

    interlocutory

    and

    collateral

    orders,

    28

    U.S.C. 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial


    Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949).
    seeks

    to

    appeal

    is

    neither

    final

    interlocutory or collateral order.

    order

    nor

    The order Smith


    an

    appealable

    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

    the

    court

    and

    argument

    would

    not

    aid

    the

    decisional

    process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like