Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 11 views

    Outlaw v. State of SC, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed an appeal from James Outlaw of a magistrate judge's order granting the state of South Carolina an extension of time to respond to Outlaw's habeas corpus petition. The court found that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the order was not a final judgment and did not fall under any exceptions allowing interlocutory appeals. The court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal as interlocutory.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Outlaw v. State of SC, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    11 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed an appeal from James Outlaw of a magistrate judge's order granting the state of South Carolina an extension of time to respond to Outlaw's habeas corpus petition. The court found that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the order was not a final judgment and did not fall under any exceptions allowing interlocutory appeals. The court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal as interlocutory.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-07-02 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-6419

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed an appeal from James Outlaw of a magistrate judge's order granting the state of South Carolina an extension of time to respond to Outlaw's habeas corpus petition. The court found that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the order was not a final judgment and did not fall under any exceptions allowing interlocutory appeals. The court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal as interlocutory.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    11 views2 pages

    Outlaw v. State of SC, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed an appeal from James Outlaw of a magistrate judge's order granting the state of South Carolina an extension of time to respond to Outlaw's habeas corpus petition. The court found that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the order was not a final judgment and did not fall under any exceptions allowing interlocutory appeals. The court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal as interlocutory.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 96-6419

    JAMES OUTLAW,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLES H. CONDON,
    Attorney General of the State of South
    Carolina,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph R. McCrorey, Magistrate Judge.
    (CA-95-3827-3-22BC)
    Submitted:

    June 20, 1996

    Decided:

    July 2, 1996

    Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    James Outlaw, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy
    Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals the order of the magistrate judge granting
    Respondents an extension of time in which to respond to Appellant's
    28 U.S.C. 2254 (1988) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of
    jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may
    exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. 1291
    (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.
    1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.
    Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither
    a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
    We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal
    as interlocutory. We deny as moot Appellant's motion for bail pending appeal. 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