John Lay v. Harris Diggs, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion objecting to terms of the PLRA [998393004-2] Originating case number: 1:10-cv-00519-JCC-TCB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998445379] [10-6976]

John Lay v. Harris Diggs, Jr.

Doc. 0

Case: 10-6976 Document: 4

Date Filed: 10/14/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6976 JOHN R. LAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HARRIS L. DIGGS, JR., Warden; VIRGINIA STATE EMPLOYEE,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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-6976 Document: 4

Date Filed: 10/14/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: John directing Lay R. to Lay amend appeals and the district his court's civil order rights

particularize

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. Lay also requests authorization from this court

June 15, 2010).

"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, serious demonstrate that he 28 "is under imminent danger of We

physical

injury."

U.S.C.

§ 1915(g)

(2006).

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); (1949). nor an Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541

The order Lay seeks to appeal is neither a final order appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 2

Case: 10-6976 Document: 4

Date Filed: 10/14/2010

Page: 3

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional

would

process. DISMISSED

3