Lamarr Dingle v. Director, Dept of Corrections, No. 17-6653 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on July 25, 2017.
Download PDF
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6653 LAMARR BARTHELL DINGLE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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
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.
