Julio Rodriguez v. Jack Clelland, No. 19-6003 (4th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6003 JULIO CESAR RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JACK CLELLAND, Superintendent, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:18-cv-00833-TDS-JEP) Submitted: April 4, 2019 Decided: April 10, 2019 Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Julio Cesar Rodriguez, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Julio Cesar Rodriguez seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition without prejudice. 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, 54546 (1949). Because the district court’s order indicated that Rodriguez could cure the defects in his petition through amendment, we conclude that the order is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See 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 dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Rodriguez to amend his petition. See Goode, 807 F.3d at 630. 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 AND REMANDED 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.