Filed: Feb. 26, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7951 BOBBY ARCHER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DR. CYPRESS; LISA EDWARDS, Warden, Defendants - Appellees, and DILLWYN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-464-2) Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 26, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7951 BOBBY ARCHER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DR. CYPRESS; LISA EDWARDS, Warden, Defendants - Appellees, and DILLWYN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-464-2) Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 26, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7951
BOBBY ARCHER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DR. CYPRESS; LISA EDWARDS, Warden,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
DILLWYN CORRECTIONAL CENTER,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CA-02-464-2)
Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 26, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bobby Archer, Appellant Pro Se. Carlene Booth Johnson, PERRY &
WINDELS, Dillwyn, Virginia; Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Bobby Archer seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing the Dillwyn Correctional Center as a party defendant
from his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. This court may exercise
jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and
certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292
(2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan
Corp.,
337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Archer 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
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -