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)
17-6653•Lamarr Barthell Dingle v. Director of the Department of Corrections
17-6653Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 4, 2017
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6653
LAMARR BARTHELL DINGLE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:16-cv-00023-GBL-IDD)
Submitted: September 27, 2017 Decided: October 4, 2017
Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lamarr Barthell Dingle, Appellant Pro Se. Leah A. Darron, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Lamarr Barthell Dingle appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to
order a third party to submit an affidavit in Dingle’s habeas proceeding. We dismiss the
appeal as interlocutory.∗
This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291
(2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The
order Dingle seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
collateral order. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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
∗ In a prior opinion we construed Dingle’s appeal as challenging the district
court’s dismissal of his § 2254 petition. However, we later determined that Dingle’s
appeal was misdocketed through no fault of his own, and we have exercised our inherent
authority to recall the mandate in this appeal and sua sponte granted rehearing by separate
order. See Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 549-50 (1998).
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.