USCA4 Appeal: 24-6160 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/28/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6160

MICHAEL ANTHONY LESLIE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; DANIEL P. O’BRIEN, Special Deputy Attorney General, Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. L. Patrick Auld, Magistrate Judge. (1:23-cv-00266-WO-LPA)

Submitted: June 25, 2024 Decided: June 28, 2024

Before RICHARDSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Anthony Leslie, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6160 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/28/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Michael Anthony Leslie seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s January 25, 2024, report in which the magistrate judge recommended dismissing Leslie’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as time-barred. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The magistrate judge’s report does not qualify as a final order, or as an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, and review of the district court’s docket confirms that Leslie did not file a separate notice of appeal following issuance of the district court’s February 29, 2024, dispositive order adopting the report and recommendation. We further observe that the doctrine of “cumulative finality”—which “authorizes us to exercise appellate jurisdiction where all claims as to all parties are disposed of while the appeal is pending, and where the district court could have certified the challenged order for immediate appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b),” Williamson v. Stirling, 912 F.3d 154, 170 (4th Cir. 2018)—does not cure this jurisdictional defect.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED