Albert Lacy v. Joe Delong

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:13-cv-14813. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999972079]. Mailed to: A. Lacy. [16-1841]

Appeal: 16-1841

Doc: 9

Filed: 11/21/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1841

ALBERT WILLIAM LACY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOE DELONG, Director, West Virginia Regional Jail Authority;
STEVE CROOKS, Administrator, South Central Regional Jail; MR.
WILSON, Medical Administrator, Prime Care Medical, Inc.; MR.
HUNTER, Correctional Officer, South Central Regional Jail;
UNKNOWN MEDICAL STAFF, Placed me in an unclean cell in the
hospital removing the person that had staff infection; MEDICAL
STAFF PERSON TERRY, Female, Prime Care Medical, Inc.; MEDICAL
STAFF PERSON EVA, Female, Prime Care Medical, Inc.; UNKNOWN
CORPORAL AND MEDICAL STAFF, Prime Care Medical, Inc.; UNKNOWN
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, Female; SEVERAL UNKNOWN CORRECTIONAL,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
Thomas E. Johnston,
District Judge. (2:13-cv-14813)

Submitted:

November 17, 2016

Decided:

November 21, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Albert William Lacy, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1841

Doc: 9

Filed: 11/21/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Albert William Lacy seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing some, but not all, of his claims raised under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2012).

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, 54546 (1949).

The order Lacy seeks to appeal is neither a final order

nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

Accordingly,

we 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