U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1996

Turner v. Kuykendall

Turner v. Kuykendall
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided July 1, 1996

Turner v. Kuykendall

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6313

JOHN PAUL TURNER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID S. KUYKENDALL, Virginia Department of Corrections, District 12, Staunton, Virginia, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-96-131-R)

Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 1, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Paul Turner, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's orders dismissing his petition for failure to state a coherent claim and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of juris- diction because the orders are not appealable. This court may exer- cise 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 orders here appealed are not ap- pealable final, interlocutory, or collateral orders. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1993).

We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We deny the motion for oral argument and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade- quately 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.