Joshua Nicks v. State of North Carolina Guilford County

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6412
JOSHUA NICKS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA GUILFORD COUNTY,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Joe L. Webster, Magistrate Judge. (1:25-cv-00325-WO-JLW)
Submitted: May 19, 2025 Decided: May 22, 2025
Before NIEMEYER, RUSHING, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joshua Nicks, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Joshua Nicks, a North Carolina state pretrial detainee, filed a “Petition for a Writ of
Certiorari” in the district court, seeking to challenge a ruling issued by the state trial court
in his criminal proceedings. The magistrate judge construed the filing as a 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 petition and recommended dismissing the petition without prejudice and with leave
to refile upon correcting certain defects in the petition. Nicks has filed several notices of
appeal, appearing to seek appellate review of rulings by the state trial court.
This court lacks jurisdiction to review state court orders. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291,
1292 (establishing federal appellate jurisdiction over federal district court orders); see also
D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983) (prohibiting federal courts
other than Supreme Court from sitting in actual or constructive appeal of state-court
judgments). Even liberally construing Nicks’s notices of appeal to seek review of the
magistrate judge’s order and recommendation, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007) (per curiam), 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). The
magistrate judge’s order and recommendation is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order.
Accordingly, we deny Nicks’s motion for injunctive relief pending appeal, deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

-- 2 of 3 --

3
presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --