Momolu Sirleaf v. David Robinson , 676 F. App'x 201 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7361
MOMOLU V.S. SIRLEAF,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DAVID ROBINSON, Chief of Operations, VDOC, sued individually
and in official capacity; WALL, Prison Chaplin, GRCC, in
official and individual capacity; HAROLD CLARK, Director,
VADOC, in his official and individual capacity; EDDIE PEARSON,
Warden, GRCC, in his official and individual capacity;
CAROLINE PARKER, Warden, GRCC, in her official and individual
capacity; D. WILMOUTH, Warden, GRCC, in his official and
individual capacity; VARGO, Warden, GRCC, in her official and
individual capacity; KEEFE, GRCC, in his official and
individual capacity; COLONEL JARRATT, Supervising Guard,
GRCC/VADOC, in his official and individual capacity; GRACE,
GRCC, in his/her official and individual capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District
Judge. (3:15-cv-00339-MHL-RCY)
Submitted: February 7, 2017 Decided: February 14, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit
Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Momolu V.S. Sirleaf, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Momolu V.S. Sirleaf seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders dismissing his civil action without prejudice and giving
him an opportunity to reinstate his action. This court may
exercise jurisdiction only over final orders of the district court,
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
orders that Sirleaf seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor
appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. See Goode v.
Central Va. Legal Aid, 807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015).
Accordingly, we deny the pending motion and 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