Filed: Sep. 19, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6393 MOMOLU V.S. SIRLEAF, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CORRECTIONAL OFFICER SCOTT, in his individual and official capacity, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:18-cv-00583-MHL-RCY) Submitted: September 12, 2019 Decided: September 19, 2019 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Sen
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6393 MOMOLU V.S. SIRLEAF, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CORRECTIONAL OFFICER SCOTT, in his individual and official capacity, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:18-cv-00583-MHL-RCY) Submitted: September 12, 2019 Decided: September 19, 2019 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Seni..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6393
MOMOLU V.S. SIRLEAF, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER SCOTT, in his individual and official capacity,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:18-cv-00583-MHL-RCY)
Submitted: September 12, 2019 Decided: September 19, 2019
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Momolu V.S. Sirleaf, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Momolu V.S. Sirleaf seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his civil
action without prejudice and denying reconsideration. We 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 orders that Sirleaf seeks to appeal are neither final orders
nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y,
807 F.3d 619, 629-30 (4th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court with instructions to give Sirleaf
another opportunity to either pay the initial filing fee or state under penalty of perjury that
he does not have sufficient assets to pay such a fee. 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 AND REMANDED
2