Curtiss Davis, III v. Edwin Roessler ( 2022 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1179 Doc: 26 Filed: 08/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1179
CURTISS DAVIS, III,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
EDWIN C. ROESSLER, JR., Chief of Police; WUSA9 News; THE WASHINGTON
POST; CLINTON E. BEACH, Officer; JEREMY HOFFMAN, Officer,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
SUSAN PEREZ; ANA ELIZABETH RIVERA-CRUZ; PEDRO BONILLA; EL
CARBONERO, LLC,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Rossie David Alston, Jr., District Judge. (1:20-cv-00992-RDA-TCB)
Submitted: August 18, 2022 Decided: August 22, 2022
Before WYNN, THACKER, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1179 Doc: 26 Filed: 08/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
Curtiss Davis, III, Appellant Pro Se. Brent J. Schultheis, FAIRFAX COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Fairfax, Virginia; Laurin Howard Mills, SAMEK, WERTHER
& MILLS, LLC, Alexandria, Virginia; Perry F. Austin, Nicholas G. Gamse, WILLIAMS
& CONNOLLY LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1179 Doc: 26 Filed: 08/22/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Curtiss Davis, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting the motions to
dismiss filed by certain Defendants in Davis’ pro se civil action. * This court may exercise
jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and
collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan
Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order that Davis seeks to appeal is neither a final
order, given that litigation on his remaining claims against other Defendants is ongoing,
nor is it an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal
for lack of jurisdiction. 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
*
As noted in the district court’s order, three of the individual Defendants did not
file motions to dismiss.
3