Skip to main content

SIRLEAF AS NEXT FRIEND FOR ISRAEL v. CLARKE (2019)

Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Priest Momolu V.S. SIRLEAF, Jr., AS NEXT FRIEND FOR the Commonwealth of ISRAEL, et al., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE; A. David Robinson; Eddie Pearson; Mark E. Engelke; Chaplain Hollenbaugh; D. Y. Kinsley; Cynthia Putney; Louise G. Goode; Barrows; C. Boone; Hannah M. Lauck; Judge; K. Phillips; S. Tapp; United States of America; K. Whithurst; Roderick C. Young, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-7311

Decided: April 30, 2019

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Momolu V.S. Sirleaf, Appellant Pro Se.

Momolu V.S. Sirleaf seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing his civil action without prejudice and denying reconsideration. We may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The orders that Sirleaf seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc'y, 807 F.3d 619, 629-30 (4th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, deny the pending motions, and remand the case to the district court with instructions to give Sirleaf another opportunity to amend his complaint. 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 AND REMANDED

PER CURIAM:

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Copied to clipboard