Robert E. Tippens, Jr. v. Harold W. Clarke, No. 17-7636 (4th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7636 ROBERT E. TIPPENS, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of VA D.O.C., Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, Magistrate Judge. (3:17-cv-00784-HEH-RCY) Submitted: April 17, 2018 Decided: April 19, 2018 Before WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Earl Tippens, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert E. Tippens, Jr., seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order rejecting his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and directing him to refile his claims as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. 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, 545-47 (1949). Because Tippens may remedy the deficiency by refiling his claims using the correct forms, we conclude that the order Tippens seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We also deny as moot Tippens’ motions for bail or release pending appeal and for a stay. 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.