Case Name: Edward L. WATSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-30
Citations: 389 F. App'x 318
Docket Number: No. 10-6045
Parties: Edward L. WATSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 389
Pages: 318–319

Head Matter:
Edward L. WATSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 10-6045.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 22, 2010.
Decided: July 30, 2010.
Edward L. Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Alice Theresa Armstrong, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Edward L. Watson appeals from the district court's order denying his Motion for Scientific Analysis of Untested Evidence filed in the course of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) proceeding. Because the district court has not yet ruled on the remaining claims in Watson's habeas peti tion, we dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Watson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.