Thomas Farmer v. R. Wolfe, No. 22-6166 (4th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-6166 THOMAS LEE FARMER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. R. M. WOLFE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:21-cv-00147-JPB-JPM) Submitted: February 13, 2023 Decided: March 31, 2023 Before THACKER, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Lee Farmer, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Thomas Lee Farmer seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition and denying reconsideration. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). “Ordinarily, a district court order is not final until it has resolved all claims as to all parties.” Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). Our review of the record reveals that the district court did not adjudicate all of the claims raised in the § 2241 petition. Id. at 696-97. Specifically, the court did not address Farmer’s challenges to the validity of his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) conviction and his 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) sentence enhancement. We conclude that the orders Farmer seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand to the district court for consideration of the unresolved claims. Id. at 699. 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.