Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Gregory Richardson v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    This document summarizes an unpublished court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Gregory A. Richardson appealed a district court order in his habeas corpus petition that gave him 14 days to comply with a prefiling injunction. However, the appeals court found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court order was not a final decision and did not fall into the limited categories of appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Therefore, the appeals court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-10-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-7545

    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    This document summarizes an unpublished court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Gregory A. Richardson appealed a district court order in his habeas corpus petition that gave him 14 days to comply with a prefiling injunction. However, the appeals court found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court order was not a final decision and did not fall into the limited categories of appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Therefore, the appeals court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

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

    Gregory Richardson v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes an unpublished court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Gregory A. Richardson appealed a district court order in his habeas corpus petition that gave him 14 days to comply with a prefiling injunction. However, the appeals court found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court order was not a final decision and did not fall into the limited categories of appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Therefore, the appeals court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

    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. 10-7545

    GREGORY A. RICHARDSON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; WARDEN OF SUSSEX I STATE PRISON;
    VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; CITY OF RICHMOND;
    VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    Robert E. Payne, Senior
    District Judge. (3:08-cv-00479-REP)

    Submitted:

    September 29, 2011

    Decided:

    October 4, 2011

    Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Gregory A. Richard, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Gregory

    A.

    Richardson

    seeks

    to

    appeal

    the

    district

    courts order in his 28 U.S.A. 2254 (2006) petition giving him


    fourteen days to comply with his prefiling injunction.
    court

    may

    exercise

    jurisdiction

    only

    over

    final

    This

    orders,

    28

    U.S.C. 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral


    orders, 28 U.S.C. 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.
    Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949).

    The

    order Richardson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an


    appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

    Accordingly, we

    deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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

    You might also like