Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Gibson, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from a magistrate judge's orders. The magistrate judge had dismissed the appellant's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 action without prejudice for failing to file the required number of copies. The Court of Appeals found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the dismissal order was not an appealable final order, as the appellant could have saved the action by refiling with the proper number of copies. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-12-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-7099

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from a magistrate judge's orders. The magistrate judge had dismissed the appellant's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 action without prejudice for failing to file the required number of copies. The Court of Appeals found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the dismissal order was not an appealable final order, as the appellant could have saved the action by refiling with the proper number of copies. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Gibson, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from a magistrate judge's orders. The magistrate judge had dismissed the appellant's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 action without prejudice for failing to file the required number of copies. The Court of Appeals found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the dismissal order was not an appealable final order, as the appellant could have saved the action by refiling with the proper number of copies. Therefore, the Court 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. 97-7099

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    VANCE MARCEL GIBSON, a/k/a Reginald Hilton
    Belton,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Paul Trevor Sharp,
    Magistrate Judge. (CR-93-211, CA-97-503-3)
    Submitted:

    November 18, 1997

    Decided:

    December 29, 1997

    Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Vance Marcel Gibson, Appellant Pro Se.
    Sandra Jane Hairston,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals from a magistrate judge's orders dismissing
    his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997) action without
    prejudice and denying his motion for an enlargement of time in
    which to file a corrected 2255 motion. This court may exercise
    jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. 1291 (1994), and
    certain interlocutory and collateral orders. See 28 U.S.C. 1292
    (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan
    Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The orders here appealed are neither
    final orders nor

    appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.

    Because Appellant could have saved this action by filing the required number of copies, the dismissal order Appellant seeks to
    appeal is not an appealable final order. See Domino Sugar v. Sugar
    Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064 (4th Cir. 1993).
    We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
    the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument
    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
    the material before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like