Ronald McGugan v. Harold Clarke ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 21-7448
    RONALD W. MCGUGAN,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    HAROLD CLARKE; JOHN DOE #1, Warden of Pocahontas; KEVIN PUNTUR,
    Current Warden; R. WALZ, Assistant Warden, Pocahontas State Correctional
    Center; JOHN DOE #2, Correctional Officer Pocahontas State Correctional Center;
    JOHN DOE #3, Correctional Officer Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JOHN
    DOE #4, Correctional Officer Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JOHN DOE #5,
    Correctional Officer Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JANE DOE #1, Nurse,
    Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JANE DOE #2, Nurse or Nurse Assistant,
    Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JANE DOE #3, Nurse or Nurse Assistant,
    Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JANE DOE #4, Pocahontas State Correctional
    Center; JOHN DOE #6, Yard Officer (correctional officer) Pocahontas State
    Correctional Center; JOHN DOE #7, Medical Building Correctional Officer,
    Pocahontas State Correctional Center; B. WILLIAMS; D. HAMMOND, Unit
    Manager, A-Building, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; D. LEE; DR.
    MULLINS, Nurse Practitioner, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; DR. SMITH,
    Doctor, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; H. E. JOHNSON, Institutional
    Investigator, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JOHN DOE #10, S.I.U.
    Investigator, Virginia Department of Corrections; JOHN DOE #11, Sergeant,
    Pocahontas State Correctional Center; M. MURPHY, Psychologist Senior,
    Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JOHN DOE #12, Department of Corrections
    Ombudsman; S. YATES, Health Authority, Pocahontas State Correctional Center;
    JOHN DOE #13, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; K. VANCE, Operations and
    PREA Compliance Manager, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; MS.
    SMALLING, Grievance Coordinator, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JANE
    DOE #5 (GROSS), Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JOHN DOE #14, Sergeant
    of A-Building, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JOHN DOE #15, Sergeant,
    Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JOHN DOE #16, Lieutenant, Pocahontas
    State Correctional Center; JOHN DOE #17, Lieutenant, Pocahontas State
    Correctional Center; JOHN DOE #18, Captain, Pocahontas State Correctional
    Center; JOHN DOE #19, Captain, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JOHN
    DOE #20, Major, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; V. SCOTT; JOHN DOE
    #22, Counselor of Building A, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JOHN DOE
    #23, Correctional Officer, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; T. HEFFINGER,
    Institutional Safety Specialist, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; J. ARMES; J.
    GRUBB,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
    Roanoke. Thomas T. Cullen, District Judge. (7:20-cv-00303-TTC-RSB)
    Submitted: December 21, 2021                                Decided: December 27, 2021
    Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
    Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Ronald W. McGugan, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Jones Blain, HARMAN CLAYTOR
    CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Ronald W. McGugan seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing some, but
    not all, of the claims raised in his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action. 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 McGugan 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 this court and argument would
    not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 7448-21

Filed Date: 12/27/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/28/2021