McCoy v. Robinson

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 21, 2011
Docket10-7529
StatusUnpublished

This text of McCoy v. Robinson (McCoy v. Robinson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McCoy v. Robinson, (4th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7529

CURTIS L. MCCOY,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

ROBINSON, Captain, Head Nurse, Richmond City Jail; C. T. WOODY, Sheriff, Richmond City Jail, sued in his individual and official capacity; DAVIS, Deputy, Richmond City Jail, sued in his individual and official capacity,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

RICHMOND CITY JAIL MEDICAL DEPARTMENT; GAINES, Nurse, Richmond City Jail, sued in her individual and official capacity,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:08-cv-00555-JRS)

Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: January 21, 2011

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis L. McCoy, Appellant Pro Se. Leslie A. Winneberger, BEALE, BALFOUR, DAVIDSON & ETHERINGTON, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Curtis L. McCoy seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing some defendants and claims in his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 (2006) action. This court may exercise jurisdiction only

over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain

interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006);

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,

337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order McCoy 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.
337 U.S. 541 (Supreme Court, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
McCoy v. Robinson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccoy-v-robinson-ca4-2011.