Jason Gilmer v. Dr. Smith

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:14-cv-00111-NKM-RSB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999646783]. Mailed to: Jason Nathaniel Gilmer. [15-6739]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-6739 Doc: 19 Filed: 08/25/2015 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6739 JASON NATHANIEL GILMER, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DR. SMITH, Head Physician of KMCC, Defendant – Appellant, and MR. A. WHITED, R.N.C.B. of KMCC; L. FLEMING, Warden of KMCC, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (7:14-cv-00111-NKM-RSB) Submitted: August 20, 2015 Decided: August 25, 2015 Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Foil Russell, HALE, LYLE & RUSSELL, PC, Bristol, Tennessee, for Appellant. Jason Nathaniel Gilmer, Appellee Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-6739 Doc: 19 Filed: 08/25/2015 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Dr. Happy Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion U.S.C. § 1983 for (2012) reconsideration action. in This Jason court Gilmer’s may 42 exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 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, 545-46 (1949). to appeal is neither a final interlocutory or collateral order. appeal for lack of jurisdiction. order The order Smith 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 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?