The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
08-6709•William Lamar Bonner, a/k/a William Bonner v. M L. RIVERA, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution Estill
08-6709Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitNov 26, 2008
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6709
WILLIAM LAMAR BONNER, a/k/a William Bonner,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
M L. RIVERA, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution
Estill,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. William W. Wilkins, Senior Circuit
Judge, sitting by designation. (8:07-cv-01498-GRA)
Submitted: November 20, 2008 Decided: November 26, 2008
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Lamar Bonner, Appellant Pro Se, Barbara Murcier Bowens,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
William Bonner, a federal prisoner, appeals the
district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and remanding his request for relief on his 28
U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition to the United States Bureau of
Prisons. 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). Following the district court’s order, Bonner filed a
motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3), in which he
asserted that, upon remand, the Bureau of Prisons had
erroneously rejected his renewed application for nunc pro tunc
designation. However, the district court has yet to issue a
final order in regard to this renewed claim. Accordingly,
because a final order has not been entered, 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 the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.