Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 7 views

    Mitter v. McBride, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It dismisses an appeal from Charles Lee Mitter, who sought to appeal a district court's denial of his motion to hold his habeas corpus petition in abeyance. The appeals court found it did not have jurisdiction over the case because the district court's order was not a final decision and did not fall under any exceptions that would allow an interlocutory appeal. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Mitter v. McBride, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It dismisses an appeal from Charles Lee Mitter, who sought to appeal a district court's denial of his motion to hold his habeas corpus petition in abeyance. The appeals court found it did not have jurisdiction over the case because the district court's order was not a final decision and did not fall under any exceptions that would allow an interlocutory appeal. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-02-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-6631

    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 from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It dismisses an appeal from Charles Lee Mitter, who sought to appeal a district court's denial of his motion to hold his habeas corpus petition in abeyance. The appeals court found it did not have jurisdiction over the case because the district court's order was not a final decision and did not fall under any exceptions that would allow an interlocutory appeal. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

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

    Mitter v. McBride, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It dismisses an appeal from Charles Lee Mitter, who sought to appeal a district court's denial of his motion to hold his habeas corpus petition in abeyance. The appeals court found it did not have jurisdiction over the case because the district court's order was not a final decision and did not fall under any exceptions that would allow an interlocutory appeal. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal 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. 06-6631

    CHARLES LEE MITTER,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    THOMAS MCBRIDE, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior
    District Judge. (2:05-cv-00028-REM)

    Submitted: February 15, 2007

    Decided:

    February 21, 2007

    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Charles Lee Mitter, 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.

    PER CURIAM:
    Charles Lee Mitter seeks to appeal the district courts
    order adopting the recommendation fo the magistrate judge and
    denying his motion to hold his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000) petition in
    abeyance.

    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 Mitter 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

    - 2 -

    You might also like