U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1992

Kenneth Allen Pruitt v. Edward W. Murray, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections

Kenneth Allen Pruitt v. Edward W. Murray, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided August 4, 1992
972 F.2d 341; 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 26747; 1992 WL 183705 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Kenneth Allen Pruitt v. Edward W. Murray, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections

Opinion

972 F.2d 341

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Kenneth Allen PRUITT, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Edward W. MURRAY, Director of the Virginia Department of
Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 92-6473.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 20, 1992
Decided: August 4, 1992

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, District Judge. (CA-91-571-N)

Kenneth Allen Pruitt, Appellant Pro Se.

Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

E.D.Va.

Dismissed.

Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

Kenneth Allen Pruitt appeals from the magistrate judge's statement from the bench that he would recommend to the district court that Pruitt's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition be dismissed. 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.

2

We deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal 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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.