Ophelia De'Lonta v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:11-cv-00483-JCT-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999010807]. Mailed to: Ophelia De'Lonta, Antonio Jackson. [12-7634]

Appeal: 12-7634

Doc: 10

Filed: 12/27/2012

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7634

OPHELIA AZRIEL DE’LONTA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE, Director, VADOC; G. K. WASHINGTON, Regional
Admin; LARRY EDMONDS, Warden, BKCC; MAJOR C. DAVIS, Chief of
Security; DAVIS, Institutional Investigator; AGENT WATSON,
Internal Affairs Unit; LISA LANG, Staff Psychologist; SARAH
PRUITT, Correctional Officer,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
James C. Turk, Senior
District Judge. (7:11-cv-00483-JCT-RSB)

Submitted:

December 20, 2012

Decided:

December 27, 2012

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ophelia Azriel De’Lonta, Appellant Pro Se. John Michael Parsons
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Antonio Pierre
Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF A. PIERRE JACKSON, P.C., Hampden-Sydney,
Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-7634

Doc: 10

Filed: 12/27/2012

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Ophelia Azriel De’Lonta seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing all but one Defendant, Sarah Pruitt, in
De’Lonta’s

42

U.S.C.

§

1983

(2006)

action.

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

De’Lonta

Corp.,

seeks

337

to

U.S.

appeal

541,

is

545-46

neither

a

(1949).
final

The

order

order

nor

an

appealable interlocutory or collateral order, as it disposes of
fewer

than

all

the

parties

involved

in

this

lawsuit.

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

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2