Court Opinion

ID: 9353462
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-11 21:00:20.464291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:06:17.666400
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6537      Doc: 15         Filed: 01/10/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6537

        MATTHEW BUDNEY,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        WRIGHT, Sheriff, Spartanburg, South Carolina; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
        STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

                             Respondents - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge; Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge.
        (1:22-cv-00074-MR)

        Submitted: November 2, 2022                                       Decided: January 10, 2023

        Before RUSHING and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Matthew Budney, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6537      Doc: 15          Filed: 01/10/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Matthew Budney appeals the district court’s order dismissing his challenge to

        several South Carolina warrants for failure to exhaust and transferring his 28 U.S.C. § 2254

        petition challenging his North Carolina convictions. Insofar as Budney challenges the

        South Carolina warrants, we dismiss the appeal as moot. We also dismiss the appeal from

        that portion of the district court’s order transferring Budney’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition to

        another district court. We 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). That

        portion of the court’s order transferring the § 2254 petition is an unappealable interlocutory

        order. See Van Orman v. Purkett, 43 F.3d 1201, 1202-03 (8th Cir. 1994); Dobard v.

        Johnson, 749 F.2d 1503, 1507 (11th Cir. 1985).

               Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. We also deny Budney’s motions to stop

        extradition, appoint counsel, and supplement the record. 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