Court Opinion

ID: 9957233
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-03 21:01:06.609249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:13.788608
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7175      Doc: 11         Filed: 04/02/2024      Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-7175

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        THOMAS BRADFORD WATERS,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
        Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (4:15-cr-00158-BHH-1; 4:19-cv-00004-BHH)

        Submitted: March 28, 2024                                           Decided: April 2, 2024

        Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Thomas Bradford Waters, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7175      Doc: 11         Filed: 04/02/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Thomas Bradford Waters seeks to appeal the district court’s text order directing the

        Government to respond to two motions Waters filed in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 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, 545-46 (1949). The text order that Waters

        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 as moot Waters’

        motions to appoint counsel and to amend his informal brief. 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