Momolu Sirleaf v. David Robinson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:15-cv-00339-MHL-RCY Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999813501]. Mailed to: M. Sirleaf. [15-7834]

Appeal: 15-7834

Doc: 10

Filed: 05/05/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7834

MOMOLU SIRLEAF,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DAVID ROBINSON, Chief of Operations, VDOC, sued individually
and in official capacity; C. WALL, Chaplin, GraceInside
Chaplin Services, Inc., sued individually and in official
capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
M. Hannah Lauck, District
Judge. (3:15-cv-00339-MHL-RCY)

Submitted:

April 8, 2016

Decided:

May 5, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Momolu Sirleaf, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7834

Doc: 10

Filed: 05/05/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Momolu Sirleaf seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his action without prejudice for failing to pay an
initial partial filing fee of $5.70.

On appeal, Sirleaf has

provided evidence that he did make the payment.

Moreover, it

appears that a payment of $5.70 was received by the district
court and credited in another case.

See Sirleaf v. Wall, No.

3:15-cv-00338-MHL-RCY (E.D. Va. Sept. 22, 2015 entry).
This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders
of

the

district

court,

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).
is

neither

a

final

collateral order.

order

The order Sirleaf seeks to appeal

nor

an

appealable

interlocutory

or

See Goode v. Central Va. Legal Aid, 807 F.3d

619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal

for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district
court

with

instructions

reinstate his case.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

to

give

Sirleaf

an

opportunity

to

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED AND REMANDED

2