Filed: Jul. 22, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6356 LAWRENCE DONNELL LEWIS, Petitioner – Appellant, v. UNKNOWN, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:15-cv-00556-JAG-RCY) Submitted: July 21, 2016 Decided: July 22, 2016 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence Donnell Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. U
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6356 LAWRENCE DONNELL LEWIS, Petitioner – Appellant, v. UNKNOWN, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:15-cv-00556-JAG-RCY) Submitted: July 21, 2016 Decided: July 22, 2016 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence Donnell Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. Un..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6356
LAWRENCE DONNELL LEWIS,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
UNKNOWN,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:15-cv-00556-JAG-RCY)
Submitted: July 21, 2016 Decided: July 22, 2016
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lawrence Donnell Lewis, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lawrence Donnell Lewis seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his civil complaint. 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). Because the
deficiencies identified by the district court were remedied by
the filing of a consent form, we conclude that the order Lewis
seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid
Soc’y, Inc.,
807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015); Domino Sugar
Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,
10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67
(4th Cir. 1993).
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