Abdul-Hamza Wali Muhammad v. Commonwealth of Virginia

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6208
ABDUL-HAMZA WALI MUHAMMAD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; HAROLD W. CLARKE; DEBRA D.
GARDNER; A. DAVID ROBINSON; GEORGE K. WASHINGTON; P.
SCARBERRY, FODA; RANDALL CHARLES. MATHENA; JOHN F. WALRATH;
SHERRI SHORTRIDGE; JEFFREY C. ARTRIP; A. J. GALLIHAR;
DEWAYNE A. TURNER; STACY L. DAY; REANNE KEGLEY; CMC
JACKSON; PAUL MOCERI, QMHP Senior; S. FLETCHER, MED/QMHP;
LIEUTENANT C. STANLEY; SERGEANT ERIC ANTHONY MILLER;
SERGEANT CLINTON DEEL; JOHN MESSER; ALL DUAL TREATMENT TEAM
MEMBERS; J. W. COYLE; C. BISHOP; A. J. VAUGHAN; LIEUTENANT
STEVEN B. FRANKLIN; LIEUTENANT JAMES LYALL; LARRY W. JARVIS;
JOHN MCQUEEN; SGT. C. DIXON; UNIT MANAGER TORI M. RAIFORD;
MISSY L. COUNTS; CAPT. D. STILL; RENA I. MULLINS; A. MURPHY;
B. AKERS; D. WILLIAMS; LARRY I. MULLINS; N.H. COOKIE SCOTT;
BRIAN KEITH DAWKINS; HELEN SCOTT RICHESON; ADINA POGUE,
Chief Operational Officer Regional; MARK E. ENGELKE;
GERALDINE G. BAKER; LIEUTENANT JUSTIN KISER; GEORGE HINKLE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Joel Christopher Hoppe,
Magistrate Judge. (7:14-cv-00529-GEC-JCH)
Submitted: April 19, 2016 Decided: April 22, 2016
Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Abdul-Hamza Wali Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson
Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Laura Haeberle
Cahill, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Abdul-Hamza Wali Muhammad seeks to appeal the magistrate
judge’s recommendation that Appellees’ motions to dismiss or for
summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part and that
Muhammad’s motions be denied. 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, 545-46 (1949). The order Muhammad
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 --