Juan Barnes v. Washington County Sheriff

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:12-cv-01994-DKC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999156345]. Mailed to: Juan Barnes. [13-6492]

Appeal: 13-6492

Doc: 13

Filed: 07/23/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6492

JUAN SYLVESTER BARNES,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
WASHINGTON
COUNTY
SHERIFF’S
OFFICE;
Detective, Hagerstown Department of Police,

TAMMY

JURADO,

Defendants – Appellees,
and
MEDICAL DEPARTMENT WASHINGTON COUNTY JAIL;
Sergeant,
Maryland
State
Police/Criminal
Division,

JOHN VANHOY,
Investigation

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District
Judge. (8:12-cv-01994-DKC)

Submitted:

July 18, 2013

Decided:

July 23, 2013

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Juan Sylvester Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. Kirk Chalis Downey,
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, Hagerstown, Maryland; Rodger Owen
Robertson, LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH M. JAGIELSKI, Baltimore,

Appeal: 13-6492

Doc: 13

Maryland; John
Appellees.

Filed: 07/23/2013

Francis

Pg: 2 of 3

Breads,

Jr.,

Hanover,

Maryland,

for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 13-6492

Doc: 13

Filed: 07/23/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Juan

Sylvester

Barnes

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court order dismissing some defendants to his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2006) action after concluding that Barnes failed to state a
claim

against

these

defendants.

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).
to

appeal

is

neither

a

final

interlocutory or collateral order.
appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

order

The order Barnes seeks
nor

an

appealable

Accordingly, we dismiss the

We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3