George Delaney v. Brandon Mullen , 704 F. App'x 290 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 17-7178
    GEORGE FREDERICK DELANEY,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    BRANDON MULLEN, Sheriff Deputy, sued individually and in his official
    capacity; JACOB T. MCNAMARA, Sheriff Deputy, sued individually and in his
    official capacity; KENNETH STOLLE, Sheriff, sued individually and in his
    official capacity; YOLANDA VINES, R.N., sued individually and in her official
    capacity; ELIZIBETH NICHOLSON, L.P.N., sued individually and in her official
    capacity; M. BAPTISTE, Sheriff Deputy, sued individually and in his or her
    official capacity; B. ORCHARD, Sheriff Deputy, sued individually and in his or
    her official capacity,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-00779-CMH-TCB)
    Submitted: November 21, 2017                            Decided: November 28, 2017
    Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    George Frederick Delaney, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    George Frederick Delaney seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his
    
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     (2012) action against some, but not all, Defendants. This court may
    exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     (2012), and certain
    interlocutory and collateral orders, 
    28 U.S.C. § 1292
     (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen
    v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 
    337 U.S. 541
    , 545-46 (1949). The order Delaney 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: 17-7178

Citation Numbers: 704 F. App'x 290

Judges: Wynn, Thacker, Hamilton

Filed Date: 11/28/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024