Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
25-6399•Alucious Williams, Jr. v. Nurse Fletcher; Nurse Craft; Nurse Practioner J. Bledsoe
25-6399Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit01.08.2025
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6399
ALUCIOUS WILLIAMS, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NURSE FLETCHER; NURSE CRAFT; NURSE PRACTIONER J. BLEDSOE,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
SGT. ALLEN; SGT. GRUBBS; SGT. MAYES; C/O ROSE; LT. BARTON,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Elizabeth K. Dillon, Chief District Judge. (7:24-cv-00127-EKD-CKM)
Submitted: July 29, 2025 Decided: August 1, 2025
Before KING, WYNN, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alucious Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Salvatore Cottone, Michael Ryan
Millstein, BYRNE CANAAN LAW, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Alucious Williams, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against three defendants. 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). “Ordinarily, a district court order is not final until it has resolved all
claims as to all parties.” Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015) (citation
modified). Because the district court has not resolved Williams’s claims against the
remaining defendants, the order he 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 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.