Court Opinion

ID: 9911826
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-20 21:00:55.543749+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:56:28.958351
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6935      Doc: 5        Filed: 12/19/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6935

        GRAHAM SCHIFF,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        WARDEN,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (1:22-cv-03332-TDC)

        Submitted: October 19, 2023                                 Decided: December 19, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Graham Harry Schiff, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6935      Doc: 5         Filed: 12/19/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Graham Harry Schiff seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion

        to stay adjudication of a pending 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, concluding his 28 U.S.C.

        § 2241 petition was duplicative, granting a motion to seal filed by Respondent, and ruling

        on various nondispositive motions. 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 Schiff 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