Norman Wilkerson v. Harold Clarke, No. 16-4518 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4518 NORMAN KEVIN WILKERSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Corrections, Director of Virginia Department of Department of Respondent - Appellee, and COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent. No. 16-6425 NORMAN KEVIN WILKERSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Corrections, Director of Virginia Respondent - Appellee, and COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:15-cv-00396-RBS-RJK) Submitted: October 6, 2016 Decided: October 28, 2016 Before KEENAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Norman Kevin Wilkerson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Norman Kevin Wilkerson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition without prejudice to his right to refile the petition after exhausting his state court remedies, denying his motion to reinstate based on having exhausted the remedies, denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, and denying his motion for release pending appeal. over final (2012), and orders of certain the We may exercise jurisdiction only district interlocutory court, and 28 U.S.C. collateral § 1291 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). that the orders Wilkerson seeks to appeal are We conclude neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. See Goode v. Central Va. Legal Aid, 807 F.3d 619 (4th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we deny Wilkerson’s pending motions as moot, dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction, and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Wilkerson to reinstate his case and file an amended § 2254 petition. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED AND REMANDED 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.
