Lenir Richardson v. O. J. Faulk

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999758445-2] Originating case number: 1:15-cv-01489-LMB-TCB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999836930]. Mailed to: L. Richardson. [16-1125]

Appeal: 16-1125

Doc: 14

Filed: 05/31/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1125

LENIR RICHARDSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
O. J. FAULK, Officer, badge #2908; D. N. CUSTER, Officer,
badge #3756; OFFICER RIZZA; COMMONWEALTH OF ATTORNEY; MARIO
TORRES, Sergeant,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (1:15-cv-01489-LMB-TCB)

Submitted:

May 26, 2016

Decided:

May 31, 2016

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit
Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lenir Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.
Kimberly Pace Baucom,
Assistant County Attorney, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1125

Doc: 14

Filed: 05/31/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Lenir Richardson seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying her motion to remand and denying her motion for recusal.
This court may 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).

The

order Richardson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

Richardson may seek

review

the

of

judgment.

these

decisions

on

appeal

from

court’s

final

Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis

and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

We dispense with

oral

contentions

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

2