Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Ramon Chapman v. Judge Christine Benaugh, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    11 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Ramon Chapman's appeal of the district court's order dismissing his complaint without prejudice. The district court found that Chapman failed to establish a jurisdictional basis for any federal claims and declined to exercise jurisdiction over any state claims. The Court of Appeals determined that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's order was not a final decision and did not fall under any exception. Therefore, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-08-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-1200

    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 Ramon Chapman's appeal of the district court's order dismissing his complaint without prejudice. The district court found that Chapman failed to establish a jurisdictional basis for any federal claims and declined to exercise jurisdiction over any state claims. The Court of Appeals determined that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's order was not a final decision and did not fall under any exception. Therefore, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    Ramon Chapman v. Judge Christine Benaugh, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Ramon Chapman's appeal of the district court's order dismissing his complaint without prejudice. The district court found that Chapman failed to establish a jurisdictional basis for any federal claims and declined to exercise jurisdiction over any state claims. The Court of Appeals determined that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's order was not a final decision and did not fall under any exception. Therefore, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.

    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. 11-1200

    RAMON CHARLES CHAPMAN,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    JUDGE CHRISTINE BENAUGH, Hearings and Appeals Judge; LAURIE
    WATKINS, Social Security Reg. Commissioner Hpt, Va. Hampton, Va.
    Branch Office; R. KING, Disability Analyst, Va. Beach, Va.
    Office; EDWARD DILLARD, VCU Medical Center/Richmond, VA; DR.
    ISAACS,
    VCU
    Medical
    Center/Richmond,
    Va.;
    BRENDA
    BAGLEY,
    Supervisor/Commonwealth of Virginia Office of Licensure and
    Certification; AMANDA DODD, VCU Medical Center Patient Liaison;
    MAND G. DODD, MBA VCU Medical Center Operation Manager; NATALIE
    OPIE-DAWSON,
    Case
    holder
    Counselor
    of
    Department
    of
    Rehabilitation Service Hampton North Office II; DOLORES HEISLE,
    M.S., CRC, LPC/Rehabilitation Counselor/Richmond, Va. Dept. of
    Rehability Service; LINDA DOUGHERTY, Private Practice Mental
    Health of Richmond, Va.,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
    Mark S. Davis, District
    Judge. (4:11-cv-00024-MSD-TEM)

    Submitted:

    July 28, 2011

    Decided:

    Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    August 1, 2011

    Ramon Charles Chapman, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Ramon
    courts

    order

    Charles

    Chapman

    dismissing

    his

    seeks

    to

    complaint

    appeal

    without

    the

    district

    prejudice

    for

    failure to state a jurisdictional basis for any federal claims


    and

    declining

    state claims.

    to

    exercise

    supplemental

    jurisdiction

    over

    any

    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

    (1949).

    v.

    Beneficial

    Indus.

    Loan

    Corp.,

    337

    U.S.

    541

    The order Chapman seeks to appeal is neither a final

    order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See


    Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d
    1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1993).
    for

    lack

    of

    jurisdiction.

    Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal


    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