Court Opinion

ID: 9785013
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 21:00:59.077161+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:03.333487
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6643      Doc: 12         Filed: 08/29/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6643

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Petitioner - Appellee,

                      v.

        DUANE LETROY BERRY,

                             Respondent - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:20-hc-02085-M)

        Submitted: August 24, 2023                                        Decided: August 29, 2023

        Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Duane Letroy Berry, Appellant Pro Se. Genna Danelle Petre, Special Assistant United
        States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North
        Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6643      Doc: 12         Filed: 08/29/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Duane Letroy Berry seeks to appeal the district court’s scheduling order that also

        denied as moot and denied his pro se motions issued in his pending civil commitment

        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, 545-47 (1949). The order Berry

        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 deny Berry’s motions to

        return property, to forward the record, and for a temporary administrative stay and 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