Court Opinion

ID: 9890739
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-14 21:00:26.578007+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:11.987235
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6228      Doc: 15         Filed: 10/13/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6228

        KENNETH H. NEWKIRK,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        RALPH NORTHAM, Governor of VA,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge; Mark R. Colombell, Magistrate
        Judge. (3:23-cv-00058-HEH-MRC)

        Submitted: September 18, 2023                                 Decided: October 13, 2023

        Before RICHARDSON, RUSHING, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Kenneth H. Newkirk, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6228      Doc: 15          Filed: 10/13/2023    Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Kenneth H. Newkirk, a Virginia inmate, filed a “Request for Emergency Appeal

        Bond on or/Appeal Bond not to Exceed 5000/and or Home Confinement.”                  After

        examining the pleading, the magistrate judge could not discern whether Newkirk was

        attempting to file a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition.

        Accordingly, the magistrate judge directed the Clerk to send Newkirk forms for both types

        of actions and ordered Newkirk to complete the proper form within 30 days.             The

        magistrate judge warned that failure to submit a completed form by the deadline would

        result in the dismissal of the action. Newkirk did not submit his action on the proper form

        but filed a “Request for Delayed Appeal.” The district court denied that request and

        dismissed Newkirk’s action without prejudice for failure to comply with the magistrate

        judge’s order.

               Newkirk first seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order directing him to file the

        action on the proper form. 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).

        “[A] final decision generally is one which ends the litigation on the merits and leaves

        nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Kinsale Ins. Co. v. JDBC Holdings,

        Inc., 31 F.4th 870, 873 (4th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted). The magistrate

        judge’s order is not a final order. Accordingly, we dismiss Newkirk’s appeal of the

        magistrate judge’s order for lack of jurisdiction.

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6228         Doc: 15        Filed: 10/13/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

               Newkirk also appeals the district court’s order dismissing his action. A district court

        has the authority to dismiss an action for a party’s failure to comply with its orders, and we

        review a court’s decision to dismiss for failure to comply for an abuse of discretion. See

        Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Attkisson v. Holder, 925 F.3d 606, 620, 625-27 (4th Cir. 2019). “A

        district court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or irrationally, fails to consider

        judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise of discretion, relies on erroneous

        factual or legal premises, or commits an error of law.” United States v. Jenkins, 22 F.4th

        162, 167 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). We conclude that the district

        court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Newkirk’s action and affirm the court’s

        judgment. Newkirk v. Northam, No. 3:23-cv-00058-HEH-MRC (E.D. Va. Mar. 28, 2023);

        see Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95-96 (4th Cir. 1989) (holding that district court did

        not abuse its discretion when it dismissed case for failure to comply with prior order after

        explicitly warning that dismissal would result from failure to comply). We deny a

        certificate of appealability as unnecessary. See Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180, 183 (2009);

        United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 399-400 (4th Cir. 2015).

               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 PART,
                                                                                 AFFIRMED IN PART

                                                       3