Ray Parker v. Abigail Spanberger

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1976

RAY ELBERT PARKER, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia or her successor; KRISTIN COLLINS, Tax Commissioner for the Commonwealth of Virginia; DANIEL PATRICK DRISCOLL, United States Secretary of Army; KAREN DURHAM AGUILARA, Executive Director Arlington National Cemetery; DOUGLAS ALLEN COLLINS, Secretary of Veteran Affairs,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:25-cv-00560-CMH-WEF)

Submitted: January 13, 2026 Decided: February 20, 2026

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ray Elbert Parker, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:

Ray Elbert Parker seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his claims against State Defendants Youngkin and Alex based on Eleventh Amendment immunity. Parker v. Youngkin, No. 1:25-cv-00560-CMH-WEF (E.D. Va. July 14, 2025). After the district court dismissed Parker’s claims against the State Defendants, the court granted his motion to voluntarily dismiss his claims against all Defendants. 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 (1949). The order Parker seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Moreover, Parker is “not entitled to appeal from a consensual dismissal of [his] claims.” See Keena v. Groupon, Inc., 886 F.3d 360, 365 (4th Cir. 2018). Accordingly, we deny Parker’s pending motions to remand, for acceptance of response, and to reverse and remand to add new parties, and 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