United States of America v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 1949 . Although Green’s notice of appeal…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7469
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TROY J. GREEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater,
District Judge. (CR-02-26; CA-03-73-3)
Submitted: August 30, 2006 Decided: September 14, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Troy J. Green, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant
United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Troy J. Green seeks to appeal the district court’s May 4,
2005 order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate
judge to deny relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. Within
ten days of that order, Green moved for reconsideration of the
order based on not having received the magistrate judge’s report
and recommendation. The district court granted Green’s motion,
giving him additional time to file his objections and noting that
the court would issue a new order as to the report and
recommendation upon its receipt and consideration of Green’s
objections. Although Green filed his objections, the district
court has not yet issued a final order in Green’s § 2255 action
taking his objections to the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation into account.
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).
Although Green’s notice of appeal became effective when the
district court ruled on his motion for reconsideration, see Fed. R.
App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(I), because the court granted the motion, the
order Green seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
Accordingly, we deny Green’s motion for appointment of
counsel 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 the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --