McInturff v. Corcoran
McInturff v. Corcoran
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7682
PAUL K. MCINTURFF, Petitioner - Appellant, versus
THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Mr. Warden; ATTORNEY GEN- ERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-1556-H)
Submitted: April 29, 1998 Decided: May 14, 1998
Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paul K. McInturff, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Annabelle Louise Lisic, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM: Paul McInturff appeals the filing of the Respondents' response to his habeas corpus petition, the district court order granting McInturff in forma pauperis status and ordering the Respondents to show cause why the writ should not be granted, and the district court's order granting McInturff thirty days to respond to the Re- spondents' response. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the orders are 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 orders and filings here appealed are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.
We deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dis- pense 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.