Banoro Garrett v. The Norfolk Police Department

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:12-cv-00295-RAJ-LRL. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999077815]. Mailed to: Banoro Garrett. [13-1092]

Appeal: 13-1092

Doc: 11

Filed: 04/02/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1092

BANORO GARRETT,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
THE NORFOLK POLICE DEPARTMENT; THE NORFOLK SHERIFF’S
OFFICE; THE CITY OF NORFOLK; LIEUTENANT R. H. WEILER;
SERGEANT R. D. LEWIS; OFFICER D. A. PACIFICO; OFFICER H. G.
WHITE; ROBERT J. MCCABE; LIEUTENANT BONILLA; SERGEANT G.
SNYDER; DEPUTY TAYLOR; M/DEPUTY A. MEARS; L. WILLIS; P.
BELL; J. CUMMINS, L.P.N.; J. KIDD; DARRELL HILL,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:12-cv-00295-RAJ-LRL)

Submitted:

March 28, 2013

Decided:

April 2, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Banoro Garrett, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa H. Leiner, HARMAN,
CLAYTOR, CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Richmond, Virginia; Melvin Wayne
Ringer,
CITY
ATTORNEY’S
OFFICE,
Norfolk,
Virginia,
for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-1092

Doc: 11

Filed: 04/02/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Banoro Garrett seeks to appeal the district court’s
order

dismissing

(2006) action.

some

Defendants

from

his

42

U.S.C.

§

1983

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.

545-46 (1949).

Beneficial

Indus.

Loan

Corp.,

337

U.S.

541,

The order Garrett seeks to appeal is neither a

final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
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