Gary Wall v. Jeffrey Artrip

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:15-cv-00097-JLK-RSB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [1000148353]. Mailed to: Gary Wall. [16-7308]

Appeal: 16-7308

Doc: 9

Filed: 09/01/2017

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7308

GARY WALL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JEFFREY ARTRIP, Delta-Building Unit Manager; T. RAIFORD, Counselor/Unit
Manager; J. FANNIN, Lieutenant; C. DEEL, Sergeant; KILBORNE, Unit
Manager; C. MURPHY, Correctional Officer; S. DAY, Lieutenant (Charlie
Building); S. FRANKLIN, Lieutenant (Charlie Building); W. SWINEY, Unit
Manager; D. TURNER, Unit Manager; D. LYNCH, Canine Unit Officer; B.
AKERS, Correctional Officer; M. COUNTS, Inmate Hearings Officer; L.
MULLINS, Inmate Hearings Officer; R. MATHENA, Warden; J. WALRATH,
Assistant Warden; G. HINKLE, Western Regional Director VDOC; L. JARVIS,
Western Regional Administrator VDOC; G. ADAMS, Lieutenant; R. KEGLEY,
Counselor; H. PONTON, Western Regional Administrator of the VDOC,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:15-cv-00097-JLK-RSB)

Submitted: August 29, 2017

Decided: September 1, 2017

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 16-7308

Doc: 9

Filed: 09/01/2017

Pg: 2 of 4

Gary Wall, Appellant Pro Se. Nancy Hull Davidson, Assistant Attorney General,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-7308

Doc: 9

Filed: 09/01/2017

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Gary Wall seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment to
the Defendants and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. Before
addressing the merits of Wall’s appeal, we first must be assured that we have jurisdiction.
Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015). We 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, 545-47 (1949). “Ordinarily, a district court order is not final until it has
resolved all claims as to all parties.” Porter, 803 F.3d at 696 (internal quotation marks
omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Generally, “a final decision is one that ends the
litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.”
Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Cent. Pension Fund of Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs &
Participating Emp’rs, 134 S. Ct. 773, 779 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“Regardless of the label given a district court decision, if it appears from the record that
the district court has not adjudicated all of the issues in a case, then there is no final
order.” Porter, 803 F.3d at 696.
Wall alleged several claims, including a retaliation claim and several due process
claims. Although the district court addressed the vast majority of these claims, it did not
address Wall’s procedural due process claim alleging that he did not receive fair
disciplinary hearings because the hearing officer did not issue a written decision
supporting her findings, did not allow Wall to testify in his defense, and was biased.
Defendants moved for summary judgment on this procedural due process claim, and Wall
3

Appeal: 16-7308

Doc: 9

Filed: 09/01/2017

Pg: 4 of 4

repeated this claim in his opposition to the motion. Because the district court did not
resolve this procedural due process claim, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. See id. at
695, 699.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as interlocutory and remand to the district
court for consideration of Wall’s procedural due process claim. We express no opinion
regarding the merits of Wall’s claims. 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 AND REMANDED

4