Carl Gordon v. Fred Schilling


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:15-cv-00095-NKM-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000034877]. Mailed to: C Gordon. [16-7409]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7409 Doc: 13 Filed: 03/03/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7409 CARL D. GORDON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DIRECTOR FRED SCHILLING, Health Services Director of Virginia Department of Corrections; MARK AMONETTE, Chief Physician of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (7:15-cv-00095-NKM-RSB) Submitted: February 3, 2017 Decided: March 3, 2017 Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl D. Gordon, Appellant Pro Se. Nancy Hull Davidson, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-7409 Doc: 13 Filed: 03/03/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Carl D. Gordon seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. court may exercise jurisdiction only over final for This 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 Gordon seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before Accordingly, we We dispense with contentions this court are and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2

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?