Court Opinion

ID: 9902191
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-23 22:00:41.438549+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:47.114438
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6524      Doc: 10         Filed: 11/22/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6524

        DAVID MEYERS,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        CHADWICK DOTSON, Director Virginia Department of Corrections; KYLE
        ROSCH, Interstate Compact Administrator,

                            Respondents - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Norfolk. Douglas E. Miller, Magistrate Judge. (2:23-cv-00022-AWA-DEM)

        Submitted: September 28, 2023                               Decided: November 22, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        David Meyers, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6524      Doc: 10        Filed: 11/22/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              David Meyers seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation

        entered in Meyers’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 proceeding. 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 § 2254 petition remains pending in the district court. Therefore, the

        order Meyers 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