William Bonner v. M. Rivera, No. 08-6709 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6709 WILLIAM LAMAR BONNER, a/k/a William Bonner, Petitioner - Appellant, v. M L. RIVERA, Estill, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. William W. Wilkins, Senior Circuit Judge, sitting by designation. (8:07-cv-01498-GRA) Submitted: November 20, 2008 Decided: November 26, 2008 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Lamar Bonner, Appellant Pro Se, Barbara Murcier Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William court s order district Bonner, a federal accepting prisoner, the appeals recommendation of the the magistrate judge and remanding his request for relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition to the United States Bureau of Prisons. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral 54(b); Cohen (1949). motion orders, v. 28 U.S.C. Beneficial § 1292 Indus. (2000); Loan Fed. Corp., R. 337 Civ. U.S. P. 541 Following the district court s order, Bonner filed a pursuant asserted that, to Fed. upon R. Civ. remand, P. the 60(b)(3), Bureau of in which Prisons he had erroneously rejected his renewed application for nunc pro tunc designation. However, the district court has yet to issue a final order in regard to this renewed claim. because a final order has not appeal for lack of jurisdiction. been entered, Accordingly, we dismiss the 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 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.