Scott v. Bazzle ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-7332
    BRIAN WILLIAM SCOTT, a/k/a Brian W. Scott,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    E.   RICHARD   BAZZLE,    Warden   of Perry
    Correctional Institution; HENRY MCMASTER,
    Attorney General for South Carolina,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    No. 06-7411
    BRIAN WILLIAM SCOTT, a/k/a Brian W. Scott,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    E.   RICHARD   BAZZLE,    Warden   of Perry
    Correctional Institution; HENRY MCMASTER,
    Attorney General for South Carolina,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Anderson.    G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
    Judge. (8:05-cv-02690-GRA)
    Submitted:   December 21, 2006           Decided:   January 4, 2007
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Brian William Scott, Appellant Pro Se.      Donald John Zelenka,
    Derrick K. McFarland, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH
    CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    - 2 -
    PER CURIAM:
    Brian William Scott seeks to appeal the district court’s
    orders finding Scott’s 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000) petition timely and
    remanding to the magistrate judge to consider the merits of the
    petition (No. 06-7332), and denying Scott’s motions to compel
    discovery (No. 06-7411). 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 orders Scott seeks to appeal are neither final
    orders     nor   appealable     interlocutory   or    collateral      orders.
    Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals 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
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-7332

Filed Date: 1/4/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014