Lorenzo Williams, Sr. v. Richard Newman ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 13-6136
    LORENZO DALE WILLIAMS, SR.,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    RICHARD K. NEWMAN; M. BYRUM, Officer of Hopewell Police
    Department; S. PAK, Officer at Hopewell Police Department;
    W. BLANKENSHIP, Officer-Hopewell Police Department; KENNETH
    NYE, Judge; ANTHONY SLYVESTER; J. ARMSTEAD, Riverside
    Regional Jail; W. ALLEN SHARRETT, Judge - Hopewell Circuit
    Court; KAY H. RACKLY, Hopewell Circuit Court; JACQUELINE
    BARRETO, Crane-Snead & Associates, Inc.; ELBERT MUMPHERY,
    Hopewell Circuit Court; SAM CAMPBELL, Hopewell Circuit
    Court,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.    Anthony John Trenga,
    District Judge. (1:12-cv-01475-AJT-TRJ)
    Submitted:   May 23, 2013                       Decided:   May 29, 2013
    Before MOTZ and    AGEE,    Circuit   Judges,   and   HAMILTON,   Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Lorenzo Dale Williams, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Lorenzo Dale Williams, Sr., seeks to appeal from the
    district court’s order dismissing his claims against several of
    the     Defendants,    directing       the        correctional         institution     to
    provide Williams’ financial information, and directing Williams
    to    provide    additional   information.              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 Williams
    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
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-6136

Filed Date: 5/29/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021