Thomas Chilton, III v. Loretta Kelly

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:10-cv-00871-JRS. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998707044]. Mailed to: Thomas Chilton, III. [11-6623]

Appeal: 11-6623

Document: 8

Date Filed: 10/24/2011

Page: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6623

THOMAS A. CHILTON, III,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LORETTA KELLY, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate
Judge. (3:10-cv-00871-JRS)

Submitted:

October 11, 2011

Decided:

October 24, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas A. Chilton, III, Appellant Pro Se.
Donald Eldridge
Jeffrey, III, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-6623

Document: 8

Date Filed: 10/24/2011

Page: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Thomas A. Chilton, III, seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his motion for a change of venue.
court

may

exercise

jurisdiction

only

over

final

This

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).

The

order Chilton seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable

interlocutory

or

collateral

order.

See

Ellicott

Mach. Corp. v. Modern Welding Co., 502 F.2d 178, 180 (4th Cir.
1974).

Accordingly,

jurisdiction.

we

dismiss

the

appeal

for

lack

of

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