Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3 views

    Boyles v. Commonwealth of VA, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Charles E. Boyles, Jr. sought to appeal a magistrate judge's order denying his motions for discovery and appointment of counsel in his habeas corpus case. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order Boyles sought to appeal was not a final order or an appealable interlocutory order.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Boyles v. Commonwealth of VA, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Charles E. Boyles, Jr. sought to appeal a magistrate judge's order denying his motions for discovery and appointment of counsel in his habeas corpus case. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order Boyles sought to appeal was not a final order or an appealable interlocutory order.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-06-17 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-6552

    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 United States Court of Appeals case in which Charles E. Boyles, Jr. sought to appeal a magistrate judge's order denying his motions for discovery and appointment of counsel in his habeas corpus case. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order Boyles sought to appeal was not a final order or an appealable interlocutory order.

    Copyright:

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

    Boyles v. Commonwealth of VA, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Charles E. Boyles, Jr. sought to appeal a magistrate judge's order denying his motions for discovery and appointment of counsel in his habeas corpus case. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order Boyles sought to appeal was not a final order or an appealable interlocutory order.

    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. 05-6552

    CHARLES E. BOYLES, JR.,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    COMMONWEALTH
    OF
    VIRGINIA;
    Director of Prisons,

    GENE

    JOHNSON,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Magistrate
    Judge. (CA-05-75)

    Submitted:

    June 9, 2005

    Decided:

    June 17, 2005

    Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Charles E. Boyles, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer,


    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Charles E. Boyles seeks to appeal the magistrate judges
    order denying his motions for discovery and appointment of counsel.
    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

    Boyles seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable


    interlocutory or collateral order.

    Accordingly, we deny Boyless

    motion to note exception and/or objection and to request mediation,


    deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal for
    lack of jurisdiction.
    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    - 2 -

    You might also like