Court Opinion

ID: 9365011
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-20 21:00:41.19412+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:42.544360
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6851      Doc: 23         Filed: 01/19/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-6851

        LEANTHONY T. WINSTON,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        HAROLD W. CLARKE,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:18-cv-00577-RGD-RJK; 2:20-cv-
        00423-RGD-RJK)

        Submitted: January 17, 2023                                       Decided: January 19, 2023

        Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        LeAnthony T. Winston, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-6851         Doc: 23      Filed: 01/19/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               LeAnthony T. Winston seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his

        amended 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and denying reconsideration. 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). “Ordinarily, a district court order is not final until it

        has resolved all claims as to all parties.” Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015)

        (internal quotation marks omitted).

               Our review of the record reveals that the district court did not adjudicate all of the

        claims raised in the petition. Specifically, the court failed to address Winston’s claims of

        prosecutorial misconduct, discrimination, violation of his speedy trial and due process

        rights, and ineffective assistance of counsel. We therefore conclude that the order Winston

        seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

        See Porter, 803 F.3d at 696-97. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction,

        deny Winston’s pending motions, and remand to the district court for consideration of the

        unresolved claims. Id. at 699.

               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 AND REMANDED

                                                     2