Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Lameek Johns v. L. Mullins, 20-6200 (2020)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 20-6200 Visitors: 11
Filed: Jun. 19, 2020
Latest Update: Sep. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6200 LAMEEK JOHNS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. L. MULLINS, Defendant - Appellee, C. MESSER; B. MULLINS, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (7:19-cv-00207-NKM-JCH) Submitted: June 16, 2020 Decided: June 19, 2020 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam
More
                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 20-6200


LAMEEK JOHNS,

                    Plaintiff - Appellant,

             v.

L. MULLINS,

                    Defendant - Appellee,

C. MESSER; B. MULLINS,

                    Defendants.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (7:19-cv-00207-NKM-JCH)


Submitted: June 16, 2020                                          Decided: June 19, 2020


Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Lameek Shalam Johns, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

      Lameek Shalam Johns seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his claim

as to one of the named defendants in his action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(2018). This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291

(2018), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2018); Fed. R.

Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 
337 U.S. 541
, 545-46 (1949). The

order Johns 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




                                            2


Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer