Ramon Chapman v. Judge Christine Benaugh

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:11-cv-00024-MSD-TEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998644384]. Mailed to: Chapman. [11-1200]

Appeal: 11-1200

Document: 12

Date Filed: 08/01/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1200

RAMON CHARLES CHAPMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JUDGE CHRISTINE BENAUGH, Hearings and Appeals Judge; LAURIE
WATKINS, Social Security Reg. Commissioner Hpt, Va. Hampton, Va.
Branch Office; R. KING, Disability Analyst, Va. Beach, Va.
Office; EDWARD DILLARD, VCU Medical Center/Richmond, VA; DR.
ISAACS,
VCU
Medical
Center/Richmond,
Va.;
BRENDA
BAGLEY,
Supervisor/Commonwealth of Virginia Office of Licensure and
Certification; AMANDA DODD, VCU Medical Center Patient Liaison;
MAND G. DODD, MBA VCU Medical Center Operation Manager; NATALIE
OPIE-DAWSON,
Case
holder
Counselor
of
Department
of
Rehabilitation Service Hampton North Office II; DOLORES HEISLE,
M.S., CRC, LPC/Rehabilitation Counselor/Richmond, Va. Dept. of
Rehability Service; LINDA DOUGHERTY, Private Practice Mental
Health of Richmond, Va.,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (4:11-cv-00024-MSD-TEM)

Submitted:

July 28, 2011

Decided:

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

August 1, 2011

Appeal: 11-1200

Document: 12

Date Filed: 08/01/2011

Page: 2 of 3

Ramon Charles Chapman, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 11-1200

Document: 12

Date Filed: 08/01/2011

Page: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Ramon
court’s

order

Charles

Chapman

dismissing

his

seeks

to

complaint

appeal

without

the

district

prejudice

for

failure to state a jurisdictional basis for any federal claims
and

declining

state claims.

to

exercise

supplemental

jurisdiction

over

any

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

(1949).

v.

Beneficial

Indus.

Loan

Corp.,

337

U.S.

541

The order Chapman seeks to appeal is neither a final

order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See
Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d
1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1993).
for

lack

of

jurisdiction.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal
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