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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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