UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4518
NORMAN KEVIN WILKERSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of Virginia Department of
Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Respondent.
No. 16-6425
NORMAN KEVIN WILKERSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of Virginia Department of
Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Respondent.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:15-cv-00396-RBS-RJK)
Submitted: October 6, 2016 Decided: October 28, 2016
Before KEENAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Norman Kevin Wilkerson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Norman Kevin Wilkerson seeks
to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (2012) petition without prejudice to his right to refile
the petition after exhausting his state court remedies, denying
his motion to reinstate based on having exhausted the remedies,
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, and denying his motion
for release pending appeal. We may exercise jurisdiction only
over final orders of the district court, 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). We conclude
that the orders Wilkerson seeks to appeal are neither final
orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. See
Goode v. Central Va. Legal Aid, 807 F.3d 619 (4th Cir. 2015).
Accordingly, we deny Wilkerson’s pending motions as moot,
dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction, and remand the
case to the district court with instructions to allow Wilkerson
to reinstate his case and file an amended § 2254 petition. 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
3