Leanthony T. Winston v. Harold W. Clarke

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6851
LEANTHONY T. WINSTON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:18-cv-00577-RGD-RJK; 2:20-cv-
00423-RGD-RJK)
Submitted: January 17, 2023 Decided: January 19, 2023
Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
LeAnthony T. Winston, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
LeAnthony T. Winston seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his
amended 28 U.S.C. § 2254 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 petition. Specifically, the court failed to address Winston’s claims of
prosecutorial misconduct, discrimination, violation of his speedy trial and due process
rights, and ineffective assistance of counsel. We therefore conclude that the order Winston
seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
See Porter, 803 F.3d at 696-97. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction,
deny Winston’s pending motions, 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 of 2 --