Randolph v. Kelly

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedDecember 29, 2010
Docket10-7447
StatusUnpublished

This text of Randolph v. Kelly (Randolph v. Kelly) 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
Randolph v. Kelly, (4th Cir. 2010).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7447

ALBERT RANDOLPH,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

LORETTA KELLY, Warden-Chief; KEITH DAWKINS, Unit Manager Housing Unit 4; R. WALLACE, Treatment Program Supervisor; D. JONES/SHIFTLETT, Mrs., former TPS; D. HUDSON, Grievance Coordinator; D. BERNADO, Mrs., Grievance Office/Designer; WITT, Mrs., Offender Records/Designer; BAILEY, Mrs., Medical Administrator; WEBB, Mrs., LPN Nurse; G.F. SIVELS, Mrs., Regional Ombudsman; DAVID ROBINSON, Regional Director; EVANS, Mrs., Offender Records, Designee,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:08-cv-00708-RLW)

Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: December 29, 2010

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Albert Randolph, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Albert Randolph seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion for summary judgment on his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 (2006) complaint. 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 Randolph seeks to appeal

is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or

collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Randolph’s motion for

transcript at government expense and 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)
Randolph v. Kelly, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/randolph-v-kelly-ca4-2010.