The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
14-7668•James Lester Roudabush, Jr. v. MILANO, Captain
14-7668Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJan 16, 2015
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7668
JAMES LESTER ROUDABUSH, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MILANO, Captain; LT. M. JOSIAH; SGT. F. MENSAH; LT. REA;
ANDERSON; D/S H. MONIR; D. HALL; C. M. HILTON; JANE DOE,
Nurse; CHARLIE, Paramedic at ADC,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
FOX,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:13-cv-00581-RBS-TEM)
Submitted: January 6, 2015 Decided: January 16, 2015
Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Lester Roudabush, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Broderick
Coleman Dunn, Alexander Francuzenko, COOK CRAIG & FRANCUZENKO,
PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
James Lester Roudabush, Jr., seeks to appeal the
district court’s September 22, 2014 order granting his motion
for voluntary dismissal of one defendant, denying his motions to
recuse and expedite, denying his motion relating to the
withdrawal of funds from his inmate account, dismissing another
defendant, and requesting that the remaining defendants return
waivers of service. This court may exercise jurisdiction only
over final 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, 545-47 (1949). The order Roudabush 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 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.