Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Walkup v. Haines, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which Harry E. Walkup, Jr. filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his state court convictions. The district court denied Walkup's motion to excuse exhaustion of state court remedies and granted the respondent's motion to dismiss the unexhausted claims. The district court gave Walkup 20 days to file an amended petition with only exhausted claims or withdraw the petition entirely. The appeals court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as the district court's order was not a final order or otherwise appealable.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-03-03 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-7627

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a court case in which Harry E. Walkup, Jr. filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his state court convictions. The district court denied Walkup's motion to excuse exhaustion of state court remedies and granted the respondent's motion to dismiss the unexhausted claims. The district court gave Walkup 20 days to file an amended petition with only exhausted claims or withdraw the petition entirely. The appeals court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as the district court's order was not a final order or otherwise appealable.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    5 views2 pages

    Walkup v. Haines, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Harry E. Walkup, Jr. filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his state court convictions. The district court denied Walkup's motion to excuse exhaustion of state court remedies and granted the respondent's motion to dismiss the unexhausted claims. The district court gave Walkup 20 days to file an amended petition with only exhausted claims or withdraw the petition entirely. The appeals court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as the district court's order was not a final order or otherwise appealable.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 05-7627

    HARRY E. WALKUP, JR.,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    WILLIAM HAINES, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virginia, at Beckley.
    David A. Faber, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-04-1283)

    Submitted: February 23, 2006

    Decided: March 3, 2006

    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Harry E. Walkup, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.


    Dawn Ellen Warfield,
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West
    Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Harry E. Walkup, Jr., filed a 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000)
    petition challenging his West Virginia state court convictions. He
    seeks to appeal the district courts order adopting the magistrate
    judges

    recommendation

    and

    denying

    Walkups

    motion

    to

    excuse

    exhaustion of state court remedies, granting Respondents motion to


    dismiss with respect to Walkups motion to excuse exhaustion, and
    giving Walkup twenty days to file an amended 2254 petition
    containing only exhausted claims or to withdraw his 2254 petition
    in its entirety.*

    This court may exercise jurisdiction only over

    final orders, 28 U.S.C. 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory


    and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P.
    54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).
    The order Walkup 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 the court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    The district court entered its order on September 30, 2005.


    Walkup has neither filed an amended 2254 petition nor withdrawn
    his 2254 petition, and no final order has been issued.
    - 2 -

    You might also like