Momolu Sirleaf v. David Robinson
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. . Mailed to: M. Sirleaf. [16-7361]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
MOMOLU V.S. SIRLEAF,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
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
February 7, 2017
February 14, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Pg: 2 of 3
Momolu V.S. Sirleaf, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 3 of 3
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).
orders that Sirleaf seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor
appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.
See Goode v.
Accordingly, we deny the pending motion and dismiss the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction.
We dispense with oral argument because the
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?