U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2019

Leonard Witt v. Redman

Leonard Witt v. Redman
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided February 26, 2019

Leonard Witt v. Redman

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7292

LEONARD THOMAS WITT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. REDMAN, Sgt.; D. WATFORD; RUSSELL, Major; B.J. LOKEY, Investigator; JOHN A. WOODSON, Warden; HENRY PONTON, Regional Administrator; VIRGINIA DAMEN, R.N.; MS. LANDRUM; DR. TEKLU, Mediko Health Services Insurance Company-Head Doctor; DR. MORENO; MEDIKO, P.C.; DR. LANDAUER, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:17-cv-00438-GEC-RSB)

Submitted: February 21, 2019 Decided: February 26, 2019

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leonard Thomas Witt, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Leonard Thomas Witt seeks to appeal two orders entered in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) civil rights action, the first of which fully granted summary judgment to one group of Defendants. The second order partially dismissed Witt’s claims against other Defendants, but did not dismiss all claims as to all Defendants. This court 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 (1949). Because litigation remains ongoing against at least one named Defendant, the orders Witt seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Witt’s motions to hold Defendants in contempt of court. 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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.