Court Opinion

ID: 9367475
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-31 21:00:46.493767+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:00.537513
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7039      Doc: 7         Filed: 01/30/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                No. 22-7039

        CASEY RAFAEL TYLER,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        JOSH STEIN,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:21-hc-02041-BO)

        Submitted: January 20, 2023                                       Decided: January 30, 2023

        Before KING, AGEE, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Casey Rafael Tyler, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7039         Doc: 7         Filed: 01/30/2023       Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

                  Casey Rafael Tyler seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

        28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders,

        28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed.

        R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949).

        “Ordinarily, a district court order is not final until it has resolved all claims as to all parties.”

        Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).

                  Our review of the record reveals that the district court did not adjudicate all of the

        claims raised in the § 2254 petition. Id. at 696-97. Specifically, the court failed to address

        Tyler’s claim that the challenged disciplinary hearings violated his procedural due process

        rights because he was not provided access to the documentary evidence used to support his

        disciplinary convictions. See Lennear v. Wilson, 937 F.3d 257, 269-70 (4th Cir. 2019).

        We conclude that the order Tyler seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable

        interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction

        and remand to the district court for consideration of the unresolved claim. Porter, 803 F.3d

        at 699.

                  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 AND REMANDED

                                                         2