James Roudabush, Jr. v. Theodore Nelson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:13-cv-00641-RBS-DEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999511961]. Mailed to: James Lester Roudabush Jr. FCI FORT DIX FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 2000 Fort Dix, NJ 08640-0000. [14-7655]

Appeal: 14-7655

Doc: 8

Filed: 01/16/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7655

JAMES LESTER ROUDABUSH, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THEODORE C. NELSON, SA, U.S. Department of State; JASON
CALLAHAN,
Detective,
Prince
William
County
Police
Department; STEPHAN HUDSON, Chief, Prince William Police
Department;
REBECCA
THATCHER,
Assistant
Commonwealth
Attorney; JOHN/JANE DOE, Prince William County Police
Department, Evidence Sect. Director; CHRIS FELDMAN,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:13-cv-00641-RBS-DEM)

Submitted:

January 6, 2015

Decided:

January 16, 2015

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Lester Roudabush, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7655

Doc: 8

Filed: 01/16/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
James

Lester

Roudabush,

Jr.,

seeks

to

appeal

the

district court’s October 3, 2014 order denying his motions to
recuse

and

relative

to

his

inmate

trust

account,

dismissing

three defendants, denying his motion to expedite, and requesting
that the remaining defendants return waivers of service.
court

may

exercise

jurisdiction

28 U.S.C.

§ 1291

(2012),

collateral

orders,

28

54(b); Cohen

v.

545-47 (1949).

and

U.S.C.

Beneficial

only

over

certain

§ 1292

Indus.

orders,

interlocutory

(2012);

Loan

final

This

Fed.

Corp.,

337

R.

and

Civ.

U.S.

P.

541,

The order Roudabush seeks to appeal is neither a

final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
We dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2