UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6826
ALEXANDER MICHAEL CARLTON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
LISA HOLLINGSWORTH, Warden; DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, and its employees/officers,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:07-cv-01301-RDB)
Submitted: August 29, 2007 Decided: September 13, 2007
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Alexander Michael Carlton, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alexander Michael Carlton appeals a district court order
denying his motion for injunctive relief, staying a final
determination of the case pending this court’s decision in
Trolinger v. Henry, No. 07-6269, and administratively closing the
case. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.
In a habeas corpus petition, Carlton challenged the
application of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, 42
U.S.C. § 14135a (2000) and the subsequent amendment by The Justice
For All Act, which extended the reach of the Act to any person
convicted of a felony.
The district court denied Carlton’s motion for injuntive
relief in which he sought an order prohibiting the Bureau of
Prisons from taking a blood sample in order to have his DNA. We
find the court did not abuse its discretion and affirm.
Insofar as Carlton appeals that part of the district
court order staying a final determination until this court issues
an opinion in Trolinger v. Henry, No. 07-6269, 2007 WL 2122069 (4th
Cir. July 25, 2007) (unpublished), we are without jurisdiction.
The federal courts of appeals are courts of limited jurisdiction,
Baird v. Palmer, 114 F.3d 39, 42 (4th Cir. 1997), and may exercise
jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and
certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292
(2000). Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan
- 2 -
Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545 (1949). A final decision is one that
“ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court
to do but execute the judgment.” Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S.
229, 233 (1945). We are obligated to review our jurisdiction sua
sponte in all cases. Maksymchuk v. Frank, 987 F.2d 1072, 1075 (4th
Cir. 1993). Because the district court order contemplated further
action after this court acted in another appeal, the order was not
a final order, nor was the decision to stay a final determination
an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we
dismiss the appeal from that part of the order.
We affirm the denial of injunctive relief and dismiss
that part of the appeal from the district court order staying a
final determination and administratively closing the case. We also
deny Carlton’s motion for a reconsideration of the court’s order
denying his motion for a stay. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART
- 3 -