Clarence Roulhac, Jr. v. B. Janek

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:10-cv-00408-HEH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998878947].. [12-6528]

Appeal: 12-6528

Doc: 16

Filed: 06/20/2012

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6528

CLARENCE ROULHAC, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PRISON HEALTH SERVICES; LINDA RAY, Ms., Head Nurse,
Powhatan
Correctional
Center;
L.
KUMP,
Ms.,
Doctor,
Powhatan Correctional Center; A. TONEY, Mr., Doctor,
Powhatan Correctional Center; B. S. JANEK, DMD, Dentist,
Powhatan Correctional Center; FRED SCHILLINGS, Dr., Health
Service Director, VDOC,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:10-cv-00408-HEH)

Submitted:

June 14, 2012

Decided: June 20, 2012

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clarence Roulhac, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Martin
Muldowney, RAWLS & MCNELIS, PC, Richmond, Virginia; John Michael
Parsons, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6528

Doc: 16

Filed: 06/20/2012

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Clarence Roulhac, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders dismissing four of five defendants in Roulhac’s
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action and denying as moot Roulhac’s
motion

for

summary

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, 545-46 (1949).
seeks

to

appeal

are

neither

final

interlocutory or collateral orders.
appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The orders Roulhac

orders

nor

appealable

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