Ophelia De'lonta v. Gene Johnson

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Ophelia De'lonta v. Gene Johnson

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6924

OPHELIA AZRIEL DE’LONTA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GENE JOHNSON, Director of VDOC; FRED SCHILLING, Director of Health Services for VDOC; MEREDITH R. CAREY, Chief Psychiatrist for VDOC; GARY L. BASS, Chief of Operations, VDOC; W. P. ROGERS, Assistant Deputy Director of Operations, VDOC; GERALD K. WASHINGTON, Regional Director, Central Regional Office for the VDOC; EDDIE PEARSON, Warden of Powhatan Correctional Center, VDOC; ANTHONY SCOTT, Chief of Security at Powhatan Correctional Center; ROBERT L. HULBERT, PhD., Mental Health Director for the VDOC; LARRY EDMONDS, Warden, Buckingham Correctional Center, VDOC; MAJOR C. DAVIS, Chief of Security of Buckingham Correctional Center; LISA LANG, Staff Psychologist; TONEY, Counselor at Buckingham Correctional Center; LOU DIXON, Registered Nurse Manager, Buckingham Correctional Center,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:11-cv-00257-JCT)

Submitted: September 29, 2011 Decided: October 5, 2011

Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ophelia De’Lonta, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Ophelia Azriel De’Lonta seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying De’Lonta’s motion for appointment of

counsel. 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 De’Lonta 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 the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3

Reference

Status
Unpublished