The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
17-7147•Salar Omar Karim v. EDDIE L. PEARSON, Warden Greensville Correctional Center
17-7147Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitFeb 16, 2018
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-7147
SALAR OMAR KARIM,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
EDDIE L. PEARSON, Warden Greensville Correctional Center,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, Magistrate Judge. (3:16-cv-00950-RCY)
Submitted: January 30, 2018 Decided: February 16, 2018
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Salar Omar Karim, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Maughan, Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Salar Omar Karim seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s* order granting in part
and denying in part, without prejudice, Respondent’s motion to dismiss Karim’s 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. 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 Karim seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order, as one of the claims raised in Karim’s § 2254
petition remains pending in the district court. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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
* This case was decided by a magistrate judge with the parties’ consent pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012).
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.