Momolu Sirleaf v. David Robinson


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-7834 Doc: 10 Filed: 05/05/2016 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7834 MOMOLU SIRLEAF, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DAVID ROBINSON, Chief of Operations, VDOC, sued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 Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?