Ophelia De'Lonta v. Harold Clarke ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 12-7634
    OPHELIA AZRIEL DE’LONTA,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    HAROLD CLARKE, Director, VADOC; G. K. WASHINGTON, Regional
    Admin; LARRY EDMONDS, Warden, BKCC; MAJOR C. DAVIS, Chief of
    Security; DAVIS, Institutional Investigator; AGENT WATSON,
    Internal Affairs Unit; LISA LANG, Staff Psychologist; SARAH
    PRUITT, Correctional Officer,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.       James C. Turk, Senior
    District Judge. (7:11-cv-00483-JCT-RSB)
    Submitted:   December 20, 2012            Decided:   December 27, 2012
    Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Ophelia Azriel De’Lonta, Appellant Pro Se. John Michael Parsons
    Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Antonio Pierre
    Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF A. PIERRE JACKSON, P.C., Hampden-Sydney,
    Virginia, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Ophelia Azriel De’Lonta seeks to appeal the district
    court’s order dismissing all but one Defendant, Sarah Pruitt, in
    De’Lonta’s       
    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
    De’Lonta    seeks       to     appeal      is     neither    a     final      order        nor    an
    appealable interlocutory or collateral order, as it disposes of
    fewer     than        all     the       parties     involved           in     this     lawsuit.
    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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-7634

Filed Date: 12/27/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014