Case Name: Priest Momolu V.S. SIRLEAF, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eddie PEARSON, Warden; Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-28
Citations: 704 F. App'x 269
Docket Number: No. 17-6798
Parties: Priest Momolu V.S. SIRLEAF, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eddie PEARSON, Warden; Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 704
Pages: 269–269

Head Matter:
Priest Momolu V.S. SIRLEAF, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eddie PEARSON, Warden; Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 17-6798
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 9, 2017
Decided: November 28, 2017
Momolu V.S. Sirleaf, Appellant Pro Se.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER .CURIAM:
Priest Momolu V.S. Sirleaf, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition without prejudice for his failure to comply with the magistrate judge's directives. 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 that Sir-leaf seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny the motion for abatement, and 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