Tavon Singletary v. State of Maryland, No. 17-6601 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6601 TAVON P. SINGLETARY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF MARYLAND; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-03591-JFM) Submitted: July 20, 2017 Decided: July 25, 2017 Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tavon P. Singletary, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tavon P. Singletary seeks to appeal an order of the district court dated April 27, 2017. 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). Our review of the docket does not reveal an order entered on that date. To the extent that Singletary seeks to appeal the district court’s orders ordering him to file a response to the Respondent’s motion to dismiss or returning improperly filed discovery motions, those orders are not final nor are they immediately appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Moreover, although the district court dismissed Singletary’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition after he filed his notice of appeal, his premature notice of appeal cannot be saved by the doctrine of cumulative finality. In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 288 (4th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
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.
