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)
13-6136•Lorenzo Dale Williams, Sr. v. Richard K. Newman
13-6136Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMay 29, 2013
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6136
LORENZO DALE WILLIAMS, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RICHARD K. NEWMAN; M. BYRUM, Officer of Hopewell Police
Department; S. PAK, Officer at Hopewell Police Department;
W. BLANKENSHIP, Officer-Hopewell Police Department; KENNETH
NYE, Judge; ANTHONY SLYVESTER; J. ARMSTEAD, Riverside
Regional Jail; W. ALLEN SHARRETT, Judge - Hopewell Circuit
Court; KAY H. RACKLY, Hopewell Circuit Court; JACQUELINE
BARRETO, Crane-Snead & Associates, Inc.; ELBERT MUMPHERY,
Hopewell Circuit Court; SAM CAMPBELL, Hopewell Circuit
Court,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga,
District Judge. (1:12-cv-01475-AJT-TRJ)
Submitted: May 23, 2013 Decided: May 29, 2013
Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Lorenzo Dale Williams, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Lorenzo Dale Williams, Sr., seeks to appeal from the
district court’s order dismissing his claims against several of
the Defendants, directing the correctional institution to
provide Williams’ financial information, and directing Williams
to provide additional information. 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 Williams
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
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.