Acoolla v. Angelone

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: December 7, 2004
• Docket: 04-7046
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7046

SHAKA ZULU ACOOLLA, a/k/a Thomas Jackson,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RON ANGELONE, in his individual and official capacities; GENE JOHNSON, in his individual and official capacities; D. J. ARMSTRONG, in his individual and official capacities; LEWIS B. CEI, in his individual and official capacities; D. MILLS, in his individual and official capacities; VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF CORRECTIONS, sued in their individual and official capacities; L. W. HUFFMAN, sued in his individual and official capacities; D. A. BRAXTON, sued in his individual capacity; B. J. WHEELER, sued in his individual capacity; SGT. PIEROTTI, sued in his individual capacity; G. K. WASHINGTON, sued in his individual and official capacities; SEAY, sued in his individual and official capacities; M. E. HANKINS, sued in his individual and official capacities; R. T. FRANCIS, sued in his individual and official capacities; R. L. ADDAMS, sued in his individual and official capacities; B. BOOKER, sued in his individual and official capacities; C. WINGFIELD, sued in his individual and official capacities; L. T. EDMONDS, sued in his individual and official capacities; D. H. LEWIS, sued in his individual and official capacities; CATRON, sued in his individual and official capacities; K. HARRISON, sued in his individual and official capacities; TERRY, sued in his individual and official capacities; T. E. BRIGGS, sued in his individual and official capacities; L. M. SAUNDERS, sued in his individual and official capacities; L. R. DAY, sued in his individual and official capacities; T. T. REDMAN, sued in his individual and official capacities; D. PULTZ, sued in his individual and official capacities; T. LAWHORN, sued in his individual and official capacities; DEOLY, sued in his individual and official capacities; G. S. DEFIBAUGH, sued in his individual and official capacities; T. C. ROVELLI, sued in his individual and official capacities; MADDOX, sued in his individual and official capacities; R. D. BANKS, sued in his individual and official capacities; R. D. BOYERS, sued in his individual and official capacities; M. PETERS, sued in his individual and official capacities; P. MASSIE, sued in his individual and official capacities; HARLOW, sued in his individual and official capacities; V. S. GRAY, a/k/a S. Gray, sued in his individual and official capacities; T. A. MARTIN, sued in his individual and official capacities; NEWCOMBS, sued in his individual and official capacities; CASH, sued in his individual and official capacities; ENURIAN, sued in his individual and official capacities; MAUZY, sued in his individual and official capacities; R. F. WILSON, sued in his individual and official capacities; R. A. YOUNG, sued in his individual and official capacities; L. W. JARVIS, sued in his individual and official capacities; P. E. MADDOX, sued in his individual and official capacities; V. J. BANDY, sued in his individual and official capacities; K. A. POLINSKY, sued in his individual and official capacities; C. A. HOLLAR, sued in his individual and official capacities; R. S. JACKSON, sued in his individual and official capacities; PIRES, sued in his individual and official capacities; L. DAVENPORT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-1008-7-JCT)

- 2 - Submitted: October 25, 2004 Decided: December 7, 2004

Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shaka Zulu Acoolla, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

- 3 - PER CURIAM:

Shaka Zulu Acoolla seeks to appeal the district court’s

order continuing the stay of his appeal. This court 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

Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Acoolla seeks to appeal is

neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral

order. 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

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

- 4 -