Warren Chase v. The Prior and Present DOC Comm

Filing 920090629

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6225 WARREN CHASE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THE PRIOR AND PRESENT DOC COMMISSIONERS OF CORRECTIONS; KATHLEEN GREEN, Warden; SIMON WAINWRIGHT, Warden; TYRONE CROWDER; JOHN S. WOLFE; CALVIN WILSON; PATRICA SHEARIN, Warden; D. HANSEN, Major; C. N. PEAY, Major; J. MAYFIELD, Lieutenant; T. DONNELL, Lieutenant; R. WALKER, Lieutenant; J. E. PRICE, Sergeant; M. MONTGOMERY, Sergeant; T. MARTIN, Sergeant; T. SMITH; T. BRAWNER, Sergeant; T. BROWN, Sergeant; D. MAYZCK, Sergeant; R. THOMPSON, Sergeant; S. FLOID; D. WIGGINS, Sergeant; K. COOPER, Sergeant; T. RICHARDSON, Sergeant; H. TALIB, Sergeant; M. WINN, Sergeant; E. THOMPSON, Sergeant; S. PHILLIPS, Sergeant; A. SCOTT, Sergeant; D. GREEN, Sergeant; E. PULLEY, Sergeant; D. MANGUM, Sergeant; M. ROSS, Sergeant; D. OLIVER, Sergeant; D. CHASE, Sergeant; D. ALEXANDER, Sergeant; L. BATTLE, Sergeant; F. SMITH, Sergeant; B. STOLKS, Sergeant; J. A. BAILEY, Sergeant, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:08-cv-00834-CCB) Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: June 29, 2009 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Warren Chase, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane Weber, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Warren Chase seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion for a default judgment. 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). to appeal is neither a final order The order Chase seeks nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. appeal for lack of jurisdiction. for injunctive relief. Accordingly, we dismiss the We also deny Chase's request 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?