Case Name: Antonio D. TISDALE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-10
Citations: 202 F. App'x 638
Docket Number: No. 06-6922
Parties: Antonio D. TISDALE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 202
Pages: 638–639

Head Matter:
Antonio D. TISDALE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 06-6922.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 28, 2006.
Decided: Oct. 10, 2006.
Antonio D. Tisdale, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Derrick K. McFarland, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Antonio D. Tisdale seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation to grant Defendants summary judgment as to five of Tisdale's seven grounds for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) and deny Defendants summary judgment on the remaining two grounds with leave to refile. 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). The order Tisdale seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.