Scott v. Bazzle, No. 06-7332 (4th Cir. 2007)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7332 BRIAN WILLIAM SCOTT, a/k/a Brian W. Scott, Petitioner - Appellant, versus E. RICHARD BAZZLE, Warden of Perry Correctional Institution; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. No. 06-7411 BRIAN WILLIAM SCOTT, a/k/a Brian W. Scott, Petitioner - Appellant, versus E. RICHARD BAZZLE, Warden of Perry Correctional Institution; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (8:05-cv-02690-GRA) Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided: January 4, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brian William Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Derrick K. McFarland, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Brian William Scott seeks to appeal the district court s orders finding Scott s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition timely and remanding to the magistrate judge to consider the merits of the petition (No. 06-7332), and denying Scott s motions to compel discovery (No. 06-7411). 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). The orders Scott seeks to appeal are neither final orders appealable nor interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals 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 -

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.