Jesse Hemingway v. Miss Chattman ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 17-7269
    JESSE HEMINGWAY,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    MISS CHATTMAN, H.S.A.; MRS. SCOTT-BOSTON, H.S.A. (Trainee); MRS.
    FRANCOS, A.H.S.A.; DR. DICOCO, Clinical Director; DR. PISCITELLI,
    Chronic Care Doctor; ANDRAGE YIRGA, Midlevel Provider; MRS.
    MCCAFFERTHY, Nurse,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    and
    DR. K. PRAKASH; TONYA MCCLELLAN, MLP/PA - Health Care Provider;
    DEBRAH WINBUSH, MLP/PA - Health Care Provider; UNITED STATES OF
    AMERICA,
    Defendants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-00208-TSE-MSN)
    Submitted: November 16, 2017                            Decided: November 21, 2017
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jesse Hemingway, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Jesse Hemingway seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his claims
    against some of the Defendants in his civil action filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown
    Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 
    403 U.S. 388
     (1971), and the Federal Tort
    Claims Act, 
    28 U.S.C. §§ 1346
    (b), 2671-80 (2012). 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 Hemingway 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: 17-7269

Filed Date: 11/21/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021