James Roudabush, Jr. v. Milano

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:13-cv-00581-RBS-TEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999512012]. Mailed to: Roudabush. [14-7668]

Appeal: 14-7668

Doc: 11

Filed: 01/16/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7668

JAMES LESTER ROUDABUSH, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MILANO, Captain; LT. M. JOSIAH; SGT. F. MENSAH; LT.
REA;
ANDERSON; D/S H. MONIR; D. HALL; C. M. HILTON; JANE DOE,
Nurse; CHARLIE, Paramedic at ADC,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
FOX,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:13-cv-00581-RBS-TEM)

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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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.
Broderick
Coleman Dunn, Alexander Francuzenko, COOK CRAIG & FRANCUZENKO,
PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.

Appeal: 14-7668

Doc: 11

Filed: 01/16/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-7668

Doc: 11

Filed: 01/16/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
James

Lester

Roudabush,

Jr.,

seeks

to

appeal

the

district court’s September 22, 2014 order granting his motion
for voluntary dismissal of one defendant, denying his motions to
recuse

and

expedite,

denying

his

motion

relating

to

the

withdrawal of funds from his inmate account, dismissing another
defendant, and requesting that the remaining defendants return
waivers of service.

This court may exercise jurisdiction only

over

28

final

orders,

U.S.C.

§ 1291

(2012),

and

certain

interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337

U.S.

541,

545-47

(1949).

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 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