Court Opinion

ID: 9390139
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 21:01:05.17976+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:31.757618
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6205      Doc: 11         Filed: 04/25/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6205

        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. Brian Scott Meyers, Magistrate Judge. (5:20-hc-02085-M)

        Submitted: April 20, 2023                                         Decided: April 25, 2023

        Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Duane Letroy Berry, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6205      Doc: 11         Filed: 04/25/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Duane Letroy Berry seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s scheduling order 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 for stay pending appeal, to vacate the district

        court’s order, and to vacate the 18 U.S.C. § 4246(a) certificate order 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