Court Opinion

ID: 9352569
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-06 21:00:38.182203+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:48.291060
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6462      Doc: 16         Filed: 01/05/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6462

        DAVID MEYERS,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        TODD E. ISHEE, NCDPS Prisons Director; DENISE JACKSON; PRESCOTT
        WILLIAMS; ERICA A. HOOKS, NCDPS Secretary; ROY COOPER, NC-Governor;
        TIMOTHY MOOSE, NCDPS Deputy Secretary; BRANDESHAWN HARRIS, NCDPS
        Prisons Assistant Director,

                            Respondents - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. Elizabeth W. Hanes, Magistrate Judge. (3:22-cv-00138-MHL-EWH)

        Submitted: December 15, 2022                                      Decided: January 5, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, 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        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-6462         Doc: 16      Filed: 01/05/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               David Meyers seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s memorandum order

        conditionally filing Meyers’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, denying without prejudice his

        motion to transfer, and directing him to resubmit the § 2254 petition using the standardized

        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). 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 also deny the motion to

        consolidate. 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