Court Opinion

ID: 9882035
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-04 21:00:54.343538+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:18.859909
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6073      Doc: 9        Filed: 10/03/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6073

        RAYMOND RONALD JENNINGS,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. L. Patrick Auld, Magistrate Judge. (1:23-cv-00016-CCE-LPA)

        Submitted: September 26, 2023                                     Decided: October 3, 2023

        Before THACKER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Raymond Ronald Jennings, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6073      Doc: 9        Filed: 10/03/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Raymond Ronald Jennings seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order and

        recommendation that the district court dismiss Jennings’ 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition without

        prejudice. 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). The magistrate

        judge’s order and recommendation is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory

        or collateral order. Accordingly, 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional

        process.

                                                                                     DISMISSED

                                                    2