Washington v. Fleming

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: September 1, 2004
• Docket: 04-6037
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6037

ANTHONY WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RUFUS FLEMING, Regional Director; J. Halsey HARRIS, Regional Obudsman; EDDIE L. PEARSON, Chief Warden; DAVID B. EVERETT, Assistant Warden of Operation and Security; JAMILA F. BURNEY, Assistant Warden of Housing and Programs; RICK E. WHITE, Senior Counselor; MICHAEL SHAWN EDWARDS, Chaplin; RUFUS ROBINSON, Unit Manager; L. MURPHY, Grievance Coordinator; SERGEANT PARHAM, Correctional Officer; MR. APPEL, Registered Nurse; LIEUTENANT HAMLETTE; JOHN DOE, IV; OFFICER KELLY; SERGEANT TISCHLER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-02-778)

Submitted: August 26, 2004 Decided: September 1, 2004

Before WIDENER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Washington, Appellant Pro Se. Philip Carlton Hollowell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; John David McChesney, Ashton Marie Jennette, RAWLS & MCNELIS, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

Anthony Washington seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing the claims against Defendant Appel in Washington’s

ongoing 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. 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 Washington 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

- 3 -