Filed: Apr. 01, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2549 LENIR RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus METRO TRANSIT AUTHORITY; FAIRFAX CONNECTOR; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Defendants - Appellees, and KIMBERLY POWEL; J. C. LYLE, Officer #241; FREEDOM BAIL BONDING, CORPORATION, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-04-874-1) Submitted: March 18, 2005 Decided: April
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2549 LENIR RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus METRO TRANSIT AUTHORITY; FAIRFAX CONNECTOR; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Defendants - Appellees, and KIMBERLY POWEL; J. C. LYLE, Officer #241; FREEDOM BAIL BONDING, CORPORATION, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-04-874-1) Submitted: March 18, 2005 Decided: April 1..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2549
LENIR RICHARDSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
METRO TRANSIT AUTHORITY; FAIRFAX CONNECTOR;
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
KIMBERLY POWEL; J. C. LYLE, Officer #241;
FREEDOM BAIL BONDING, CORPORATION,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District
Judge. (CA-04-874-1)
Submitted: March 18, 2005 Decided: April 1, 2005
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lenir Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Lenir Richardson appeals the district court’s order
dismissing for failure to state a claim some but not all of the
defendants named in Richardson’s civil rights action. We dismiss
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not
appealable. 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 here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order.
We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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
- 2 -