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)
25-1634•John Rodgers Burnley v. Jeffrey W. Walburn
25-1634Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitNov 4, 2025
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1634
JOHN RODGERS BURNLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JEFFREY W. WALBURN; ALEXANDRA M. VALENTIN; MARGARET
CUNNINGHAM, Detective, City of Richmond Police Department; DONALD
DAVENPORT, Chief of Staff, City of Richmond Police Department; UNKNOWN
NAMED UNDERCOVER POLICE OFFICERS, City of Richmond Police
Department,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:25-cv-00210-DJN)
Submitted: October 30, 2025 Decided: November 4, 2025
Before RUSHING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Rodgers Burnley, Appellant Pro Se. John Ryan Owen, Anthony Tamburro,
HARMAN CLAYTOR CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Glen Allen, Virginia; Shannan
Marie Fitzgerald, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
John Rodgers Burnley seeks to appeal the district court’s orders granting Burnley’s
in forma pauperis application and granting in part Defendants’ motion to enforce and
referring the case in part to a magistrate judge for resolution, as well as two 2023 settlement
agreements entered in a previous lawsuit. 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 district court’s orders and the settlement agreements that Burnley seeks to
appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.
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.