Case Name: William Lamar BONNER, a/k/a William Bonner, Petitioner-Appellant, v. M L. RIVERA, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution Estill, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-26
Citations: 301 F. App'x 275
Docket Number: No. 08-6709
Parties: William Lamar BONNER, a/k/a William Bonner, Petitioner-Appellant, v. M L. RIVERA, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution Estill, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 301
Pages: 275–276

Head Matter:
William Lamar BONNER, a/k/a William Bonner, Petitioner-Appellant, v. M L. RIVERA, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution Estill, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-6709.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 20, 2008.
Decided: Nov. 26, 2008.
William Lamar Bonner, Appellant Pro Se, Barbara Murcier Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
William Bonner, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and remanding his request for relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition to the United States Bureau of Prisons. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp; 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Following the district court's order, Bonner filed a motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3), in which he asserted that, upon remand, the Bureau of Prisons had erroneously rejected his renewed application for nunc pro tunc designation. However, the district court has yet to issue a final order in regard to this renewed claim. Accordingly, because a final order has not been entered, 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.