David Williams v. R. Mathena

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:10-cv-00404-jlk-mfu Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998541685] [10-7686]

David Williams v. R. Mathena

Doc. 0

Case: 10-7686

Document: 9

Date Filed: 03/10/2011

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7686

DAVID W. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff ­ Appellant, v. R. C. MATHENA, Warden; J. KISER, Assistant Warden; MR. BAKER, Psychologist; D. VASS, ICA Classification Director; CENTRAL CLASSIFICATION, Name Unknown; JOHN GARMIN, Regional Director; MR. FORMER, Counselor; ROD WICKER, Chaplain; MAJOR NEWBERRY, Security; CAPTAIN GAYHEART, Security; LIEUTENANT HONAKER, Security; SERGEANT RATLIFF; SERGEANT WHITE; REYNOLDS, C/O; J. VASS, Programs; MILLER, C/O, Defendants ­ Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:10-cv-00404-jlk-mfu)

Submitted:

January 25, 2011

Decided:

March 10, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David W. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees Ratliff and Miller.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-7686

Document: 9

Date Filed: 03/10/2011

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: David W. Williams seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing some of his claims. 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, 545-46 (1949). seeks to appeal is neither a final order The order Williams nor an appealable

interlocutory or collateral order. appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Accordingly, we dismiss the

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

2