Banoro Garrett v. The Norfolk Police Department ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 13-1092
    BANORO GARRETT,
    Plaintiff – Appellant,
    v.
    THE NORFOLK POLICE DEPARTMENT; THE NORFOLK SHERIFF’S
    OFFICE; THE CITY OF NORFOLK; LIEUTENANT R. H. WEILER;
    SERGEANT R. D. LEWIS; OFFICER D. A. PACIFICO; OFFICER H. G.
    WHITE; ROBERT J. MCCABE; LIEUTENANT BONILLA; SERGEANT G.
    SNYDER; DEPUTY TAYLOR; M/DEPUTY A. MEARS; L. WILLIS; P.
    BELL; J. CUMMINS, L.P.N.; J. KIDD; DARRELL HILL,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
    Judge. (2:12-cv-00295-RAJ-LRL)
    Submitted:   March 28, 2013                 Decided:   April 2, 2013
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Banoro Garrett, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa H. Leiner, HARMAN,
    CLAYTOR, CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Richmond, Virginia; Melvin Wayne
    Ringer,   CITY  ATTORNEY’S  OFFICE,  Norfolk,  Virginia,  for
    Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Banoro Garrett seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order   dismissing       some    Defendants    from    his    
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
    (2006) action.         This court may exercise jurisdiction only over
    final orders, 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     (2006), and certain interlocutory
    and collateral orders, 
    28 U.S.C. § 1292
     (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P.
    54(b); Cohen      v.    Beneficial    Indus.    Loan    Corp.,     
    337 U.S. 541
    ,
    545-46 (1949).         The order Garrett seeks to appeal is neither a
    final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
    Accordingly, we dismiss the 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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-1092

Filed Date: 4/2/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021