Ronald McGugan v. Harold Clarke

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Ronald McGugan v. Harold Clarke

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7448 Doc: 13 Filed: 12/27/2021 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7448

RONALD W. MCGUGAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE; JOHN DOE #1, Warden of Pocahontas; KEVIN PUNTUR, Current Warden; R. WALZ, Assistant Warden, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JOHN DOE #2, Correctional Officer Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JOHN DOE #3, Correctional Officer Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JOHN DOE #4, Correctional Officer Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JOHN DOE #5, Correctional Officer Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JANE DOE #1, Nurse, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JANE DOE #2, Nurse or Nurse Assistant, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JANE DOE #3, Nurse or Nurse Assistant, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JANE DOE #4, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JOHN DOE #6, Yard Officer (correctional officer) Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JOHN DOE #7, Medical Building Correctional Officer, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; B. WILLIAMS; D. HAMMOND, Unit Manager, A-Building, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; D. LEE; DR. MULLINS, Nurse Practitioner, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; DR. SMITH, Doctor, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; H. E. JOHNSON, Institutional Investigator, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JOHN DOE #10, S.I.U. Investigator, Virginia Department of Corrections; JOHN DOE #11, Sergeant, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; M. MURPHY, Psychologist Senior, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JOHN DOE #12, Department of Corrections Ombudsman; S. YATES, Health Authority, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JOHN DOE #13, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; K. VANCE, Operations and PREA Compliance Manager, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; MS. SMALLING, Grievance Coordinator, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JANE DOE #5 (GROSS), Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JOHN DOE #14, Sergeant of A-Building, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JOHN DOE #15, Sergeant, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JOHN DOE #16, Lieutenant, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JOHN DOE #17, Lieutenant, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JOHN DOE #18, Captain, Pocahontas State Correctional USCA4 Appeal: 21-7448 Doc: 13 Filed: 12/27/2021 Pg: 2 of 3

Center; JOHN DOE #19, Captain, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JOHN DOE #20, Major, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; V. SCOTT; JOHN DOE #22, Counselor of Building A, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JOHN DOE #23, Correctional Officer, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; T. HEFFINGER, Institutional Safety Specialist, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; J. ARMES; J. GRUBB,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Thomas T. Cullen, District Judge. (7:20-cv-00303-TTC-RSB)

Submitted: December 21, 2021 Decided: December 27, 2021

Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald W. McGugan, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Jones Blain, HARMAN CLAYTOR CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 21-7448 Doc: 13 Filed: 12/27/2021 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Ronald W. McGugan seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing some, but

not all, of the claims raised in his

42 U.S.C. § 1983

action. This court may exercise

jurisdiction only over final orders,

28 U.S.C. § 1291

, and certain interlocutory and

collateral orders,

28 U.S.C. § 1292

; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan

Corp.,

337 U.S. 541, 545-46

(1949). The order McGugan 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

Reference

Status
Unpublished