Momolu Sirleaf v. David Robinson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for injunctive relief pending appeal (FRAP 8) [999958485-3] Originating case number: 3:15-cv-00339-MHL-RCY. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000023065]. Mailed to: M. Sirleaf. [16-7361]

Appeal: 16-7361

Doc: 10

Filed: 02/14/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7361

MOMOLU V.S. SIRLEAF,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DAVID ROBINSON, Chief of Operations, VDOC, sued individually
and in official capacity; WALL, Prison Chaplin, GRCC, in
official and individual capacity; HAROLD CLARK, Director,
VADOC, in his official and individual capacity; EDDIE PEARSON,
Warden, GRCC, in his official and individual capacity;
CAROLINE PARKER, Warden, GRCC, in her official and individual
capacity; D. WILMOUTH, Warden, GRCC, in his official and
individual capacity; VARGO, Warden, GRCC, in her official and
individual capacity; KEEFE, GRCC, in his official and
individual capacity; COLONEL JARRATT, Supervising Guard,
GRCC/VADOC, in his official and individual capacity; GRACE,
GRCC, in his/her official and individual 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:

February 7, 2017

Decided:

February 14, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit
Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 16-7361

Doc: 10

Filed: 02/14/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

Momolu V.S. Sirleaf, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-7361

Doc: 10

Filed: 02/14/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Momolu V.S. Sirleaf seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders dismissing his civil action without prejudice and giving
him an opportunity to reinstate his action.

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).

The

orders that Sirleaf seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor
appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.
Central

Va.

Legal

Aid,

807

F.3d

619,

623

(4th

See Goode v.
Cir.

2015).

Accordingly, we deny the pending motion and dismiss the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED

3