Beautanous Coor v. Patricia Stansberry, No. 09-6026 (4th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6026 BEAUTANOUS COOR, Petitioner - Appellant, v. PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY, Respondent - Appellee. No. 09-6214 BEAUTANOUS COOR, Petitioner - Appellant, v. PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:08-cv-00061-REP) Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. June 29, 2009 No. 09-6026 dismissed; No. 09-6214 affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Beautanous Coor, Assistant United Appellee. Appellant Pro Se. Robin Elaine Perrin, States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Beautanous Coor, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the magistrate judge s order denying his motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel (No. 09-6026), and appeals the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition (No. 09-6214). This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral 54(b); orders, Cohen (1949). neither The a v. lack order final of U.S.C. Beneficial Coor order collateral order. for 28 § 1292 Indus. seeks nor (2006); Loan to an Fed. 337 P. 541 09-6026 is interlocutory or in appealable Civ. U.S. Corp., appeal R. No. Accordingly, we dismiss appeal No. 09-6026 jurisdiction. Coor v. Stansberry, No. 3:08-cv- 00061-REP (E.D. Va. filed Dec. 12, 2008, entered Dec. 13, 2008). We affirm No. 09-6214 for the reasons stated by the district reversible court, having error. Coor reviewed v. the Stansberry, (E.D. Va. filed Dec. 31, 2008). record No. and found no 3:08-cv-00061-REP 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. No. 09-6026 DISMISSED No. 09-6214 AFFIRMED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.