Case ID: f-appx_693/html/0263-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Tavon P. SINGLETARY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of MARYLAND; The Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 17-6601
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 20, 2017
    Decided: July 25, 2017
    Tavon P. Singletary, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this' circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tavon P. Singletary seeks to appeal an order of the district court dated April 27, 2017. 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Our review of the docket does not reveal an order entered on that date. To the extent that Singletary seeks to appeal the district court’s orders ordering him to file a response to the Respondent’s motion to dismiss or returning improperly filed discovery motions, those orders are not final nor are they immediately appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Moreover, although the district court dismissed Sin-gletary’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition after he filed his notice of appeal, his premature notice of appeal cannot he saved by the doctrine of cumulative finality. In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 288 (4th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we 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