Lay v. Diggs

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6976
JOHN R. LAY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HARRIS L. DIGGS, JR., Warden; VIRGINIA STATE EMPLOYEE, 1-34,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:10-cv-00519-JCC-TCB)
Submitted: August 31, 2010 Decided: October 14, 2010
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John R. Lay, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John R. Lay appeals the district court’s order
directing Lay to amend and particularize his civil rights
complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006), and to
either pay the requisite filing fee or apply to proceed in forma
pauperis. See Lay v. Diggs, No. 1:10-cv-00519-JCC-TCB (E.D. Va.
June 15, 2010). Lay also requests authorization from this court
“for leave to proceed before United States Congress for review.”
For the reasons set forth below, we deny the motion and dismiss
the appeal.
In his motion, Lay asks this court to declare, in the
first instance, that the facts alleged in the complaint filed in
his civil action, which is pending in the Eastern District of
Virginia, demonstrate that he “is under imminent danger of
serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2006). We
decline Lay’s request, and deny the motion.
We further hold that we lack jurisdiction over the
pending appeal. 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(1949). The order Lay seeks to appeal is neither a final order
nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
2
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3