James Roudabush, Jr. v. Lieutenant Josiah
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:13-cv-00467-RBS-TEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999738493]. Mailed to: appellant. [15-7662]
Appeal: 15-7662
Doc: 15
Filed: 01/20/2016
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7662
JAMES LESTER ROUDABUSH, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LIEUTENANT JOSIAH; SERGEANT JESSUP; CHIEF STERN; DEPUTY
STERN; CAPTAIN MILANO; DANA LAWHORNE, Sheriff; A. ANDERSON,
AUSA; C. M. HILTON, Usdc-Edva,
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-00467-RBS-TEM)
Submitted:
January 14, 2016
Decided:
January 20, 2016
Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-7662
Doc: 15
Filed: 01/20/2016
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
James Lester Roudabush, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s
order
dismissing
his
civil
action
without
prejudice.
This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders,
28 U.S.C.
§ 1291
(2012),
collateral orders.
54(b); Cohen
545-47
v.
district
court
certain
interlocutory
and
28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P.
Beneficial
(1949).
and
Because
may
be
Indus.
the
Loan
Corp.,
deficiencies
remedied
by
the
337
U.S.
identified
filing
of
an
541,
by
the
amended
complaint, we conclude that the order Roudabush seeks to appeal
is
neither
a
final
collateral order.
order
nor
an
appealable
interlocutory
or
Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc.,
___ F.3d ___, No. 14-1939, 2015 WL 8289046, at *3-*4 (4th Cir.
Dec. 9, 2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union
392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).
Accordingly,
jurisdiction.
we
dismiss
the
appeal
for
lack
of
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?