Court Opinion

ID: 9371252
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-15 21:00:28.599062+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:26.424090
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7126      Doc: 8        Filed: 02/14/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7126

        RICHARD WADE KENDRICK,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        L. EDMONDS, Warden,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Roanoke. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (7:21-cv-00505-JPJ-PMS)

        Submitted: February 7, 2023                                  Decided: February 14, 2023

        Before KING, AGEE, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Richard Wade Kendrick, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7126         Doc: 8         Filed: 02/14/2023       Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Richard Wade Kendrick seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on

        his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. 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 Kendrick’s claims

        that his attorneys provided ineffective assistance by failing to assert his speedy trial rights

        prior to trial and failing to assert the denial of his right to a speedy trial during his trial or

        on appeal. We therefore conclude that the order Kendrick seeks to appeal is neither a final

        order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the

        appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand to the district court for consideration of the

        unresolved claims. ∗

               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

               ∗
                   We express no opinion on the merits of these claims.

                                                         2