Court Opinion

ID: 991741
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:41:23.853685+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:34:48.970918
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 96-7812

CHESTER WHITE,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CA-96-415-2)

Submitted:   March 13, 1997                 Decided:   March 20, 1997

Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chester White, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

        Appellant appeals the magistrate judge's report recommending

dismissal of his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (1994),

amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,
Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We dismiss the appeal for lack

of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may

exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291

(1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.

Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither

a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

Although the district court has entered a final order, Appellant

did not note an appeal of the final order, nor did he challenge the
final order in his informal brief filed in this court. *

        We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal

as interlocutory. 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

    *
      Even if his original notice of appeal conferred jurisdiction
on this court, Appellant waived review by failing to file specific
objections to the magistrate judge's report in the district court.
See Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982).

                                   2