Jerome Usher v. Keith Davis, No. 14-6556 (4th Cir. 2014)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6556 JEROME USHER, Petitioner Appellant, v. KEITH W. DAVIS, Warden, Respondent Appellee, and UNKNOWN, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Senior District Judge. (3:13-cv-00386-JRS) Submitted: September 23, 2014 Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge. GREGORY, Decided: Circuit September 25, 2014 Judges, and HAMILTON, Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome Usher, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jerome Usher seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The district court dismissed for failure to comply with the court s orders to complete the standardized form for § 2254 petitions and failure to respond to the show cause order regarding exhaustion of state court remedies. 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 that Usher seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, as Usher may § 2254 petition in compliance with court orders. re-file his Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we deny permission to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Usher s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.