PIECHOCKI v. MARYLAND (2021)

Victor M. Piechocki seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing without prejudice two 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petitions. After the district court dismissed without prejudice Piechocki's first two § 2241 petitions, Piechocki filed a third § 2241 petition. Piechocki also filed a “motion for en banc review.” The district court then consolidated the previously adjudicated § 2241 petitions with Piechocki's third § 2241 petition and construed his “motion for en banc review” as a notice of appeal challenging the court's dismissals of Piechocki's first two § 2241 petitions. The consolidated petitions remain pending in the district court.

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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because the consolidated litigation remains ongoing, the orders Piechocki seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. See Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC, 959 F.3d 605, 610 (4th Cir. 2020), petition for cert. filed, No. 20-759 (U.S. Nov. 27, 2020).

Accordingly, we dismiss the 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

PER CURIAM:

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.