Court Opinion

ID: 9947155
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-02 21:00:55.122955+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:00.135088
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7061      Doc: 8         Filed: 03/01/2024      Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-7061

        KEITH LEVAN,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        WARDEN LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
        Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (4:22-cv-03990-MGL-TER)

        Submitted: February 27, 2024                                          Decided: March 1, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Keith LeVan, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7061      Doc: 8         Filed: 03/01/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Keith LeVan seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate

        judge’s recommendation and denying LeVan’s petition for writ of mandamus filed in

        LeVan’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 proceedings. 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). Because LeVan’s § 2254 petition is still pending in the district court, the order

        LeVan seeks to appeal 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