The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
11-6623•Thomas A. Chilton, Iii v. LORETTA KELLY, Warden
11-6623Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 24, 2011
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6623
THOMAS A. CHILTON, III,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LORETTA KELLY, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate
Judge. (3:10-cv-00871-JRS)
Submitted: October 11, 2011 Decided: October 24, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas A. Chilton, III, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge
Jeffrey, III, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Thomas A. Chilton, III, seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his motion for a change of venue. 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). The
order Chilton seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Ellicott
Mach. Corp. v. Modern Welding Co., 502 F.2d 178, 180 (4th Cir.
1974). 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.