Case Name: Salar Omar KARIM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eddie L. PEARSON, Warden Greensville Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-16
Citations: 711 F. App'x 186
Docket Number: No. 17-7147
Parties: Salar Omar KARIM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eddie L. PEARSON, Warden Greensville Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 711
Pages: 186–187

Head Matter:
Salar Omar KARIM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eddie L. PEARSON, Warden Greensville Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 17-7147
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: January 30, 2018
Decided: February 16, 2018
Salar Omar Karim, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Maughan, Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Salar Omar Karim seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order granting in part and denying in part, without prejudice, Respondent's motion to dismiss Karim's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. 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). The order Karim seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, as one of the claims raised in Karim's § 2254 petition remains pending in the district court. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss this 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
This case was decided by a magistrate judge with the parties' consent pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012).