Smitherman v. Angelone , 33 F. App'x 699 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 02-6197
    RONALD R. SMITHERMAN,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia
    Department of Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. James E. Bradberry, Magistrate
    Judge. (CA-01-540-2)
    Submitted:   April 25, 2002                    Decided:   May 6, 2002
    Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Ronald R. Smitherman, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey,
    III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
    Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Ronald R. Smitherman filed an action under 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2254
    (West 1994 & Supp. 2001), challenging his state court convictions.
    During the course of the § 2254 proceedings, Smitherman moved to
    enjoin prison officials from opening legal mail he received in
    connection with the § 2254 action.*            The magistrate judge denied
    the motion, and Smitherman appeals.
    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
       (1994),   and    certain
    interlocutory and collateral orders. 
    28 U.S.C. § 1292
     (1994); 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.            Accordingly, we
    deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal as
    interlocutory.        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
    *
    Although this motion was docketed in the § 2254 action, we
    note that it is more appropriately construed as a separate action
    under 
    42 U.S.C.A. § 1983
     (West Supp. 2001).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-6197

Citation Numbers: 33 F. App'x 699

Judges: Hamilton, King, Per Curiam, Williams

Filed Date: 5/6/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023