Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Clarence Roulhac, Jr. v. B. Janek, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal in the case of Clarence Roulhac, Jr. v. Prison Health Services et al. for lack of jurisdiction. The district court had dismissed four of five defendants in Roulhac's Section 1983 civil rights action and denied his motion for summary judgment as moot. The Fourth Circuit found that these were not final orders or appealable interlocutory or collateral orders, so it did not have jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-06-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-6528

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal in the case of Clarence Roulhac, Jr. v. Prison Health Services et al. for lack of jurisdiction. The district court had dismissed four of five defendants in Roulhac's Section 1983 civil rights action and denied his motion for summary judgment as moot. The Fourth Circuit found that these were not final orders or appealable interlocutory or collateral orders, so it did not have jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    3 views2 pages

    Clarence Roulhac, Jr. v. B. Janek, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal in the case of Clarence Roulhac, Jr. v. Prison Health Services et al. for lack of jurisdiction. The district court had dismissed four of five defendants in Roulhac's Section 1983 civil rights action and denied his motion for summary judgment as moot. The Fourth Circuit found that these were not final orders or appealable interlocutory or collateral orders, so it did not have jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 12-6528

    CLARENCE ROULHAC, JR.,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    PRISON HEALTH SERVICES; LINDA RAY, Ms., Head Nurse,
    Powhatan
    Correctional
    Center;
    L.
    KUMP,
    Ms.,
    Doctor,
    Powhatan Correctional Center; A. TONEY, Mr., Doctor,
    Powhatan Correctional Center; B. S. JANEK, DMD, Dentist,
    Powhatan Correctional Center; FRED SCHILLINGS, Dr., Health
    Service Director, VDOC,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    Henry E. Hudson, District
    Judge. (3:10-cv-00408-HEH)

    Submitted:

    June 14, 2012

    Decided: June 20, 2012

    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Clarence Roulhac, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Martin


    Muldowney, RAWLS & MCNELIS, PC, Richmond, Virginia; John Michael
    Parsons, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
    GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Clarence Roulhac, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
    courts orders dismissing four of five defendants in Roulhacs
    42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) action and denying as moot Roulhacs
    motion

    for

    summary

    judgment.

    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, 545-46 (1949).
    seeks

    to

    appeal

    are

    neither

    final

    interlocutory or collateral orders.


    appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    The orders Roulhac

    orders

    nor

    appealable

    Accordingly, we dismiss the

    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

    You might also like