Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Ophelia De'lonta v. Gene Johnson, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Ophelia De'Lonta's appeal of the district court's denial of her motion for appointment of counsel. The court found that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's order was not a final judgment and did not fall under any exceptions allowing for interlocutory appeals. As the order was not final and did not meet the criteria for an interlocutory appeal, the court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-10-05 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-6924

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Ophelia De'Lonta's appeal of the district court's denial of her motion for appointment of counsel. The court found that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's order was not a final judgment and did not fall under any exceptions allowing for interlocutory appeals. As the order was not final and did not meet the criteria for an interlocutory appeal, the court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    5 views3 pages

    Ophelia De'lonta v. Gene Johnson, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Ophelia De'Lonta's appeal of the district court's denial of her motion for appointment of counsel. The court found that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's order was not a final judgment and did not fall under any exceptions allowing for interlocutory appeals. As the order was not final and did not meet the criteria for an interlocutory appeal, the court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 11-6924

    OPHELIA AZRIEL DELONTA,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    GENE JOHNSON, Director of VDOC; FRED SCHILLING, Director of
    Health
    Services
    for
    VDOC;
    MEREDITH
    R.
    CAREY,
    Chief
    Psychiatrist for VDOC; GARY L. BASS, Chief of Operations,
    VDOC; W. P. ROGERS, Assistant Deputy Director of Operations,
    VDOC; GERALD K. WASHINGTON, Regional Director, Central
    Regional Office for the VDOC; EDDIE PEARSON, Warden of
    Powhatan Correctional Center, VDOC; ANTHONY SCOTT, Chief of
    Security at Powhatan Correctional Center; ROBERT L. HULBERT,
    PhD., Mental Health Director for the VDOC; LARRY EDMONDS,
    Warden, Buckingham Correctional Center, VDOC; MAJOR C.
    DAVIS, Chief of Security of Buckingham Correctional Center;
    LISA
    LANG,
    Staff
    Psychologist;
    TONEY,
    Counselor
    at
    Buckingham Correctional Center; LOU DIXON, Registered Nurse
    Manager, Buckingham Correctional Center,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
    James C. Turk, Senior
    District Judge. (7:11-cv-00257-JCT)

    Submitted:

    September 29, 2011

    Decided:

    Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    October 5, 2011

    Ophelia DeLonta, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Ophelia Azriel DeLonta seeks to appeal the district
    courts

    order

    counsel.

    denying

    DeLontas

    motion

    for

    appointment

    of

    This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final

    orders, 28 U.S.C. 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and


    collateral

    orders,

    28

    U.S.C.

    1292

    (2006);

    Fed.

    R.

    Civ.

    P.

    54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 54546 (1949).

    The order DeLonta seeks to appeal is neither a

    final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.


    Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
    dispense

    with

    oral

    argument

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    We

    legal

    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the


    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like