USCA4 Appeal: 25-1634 Doc: 13 Filed: 11/04/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1634

JOHN RODGERS BURNLEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JEFFREY W. WALBURN; ALEXANDRA M. VALENTIN; MARGARET CUNNINGHAM, Detective, City of Richmond Police Department; DONALD DAVENPORT, Chief of Staff, City of Richmond Police Department; UNKNOWN NAMED UNDERCOVER POLICE OFFICERS, City of Richmond Police Department,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:25-cv-00210-DJN)

Submitted: October 30, 2025 Decided: November 4, 2025

Before RUSHING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Rodgers Burnley, Appellant Pro Se. John Ryan Owen, Anthony Tamburro, HARMAN CLAYTOR CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Glen Allen, Virginia; Shannan Marie Fitzgerald, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1634 Doc: 13 Filed: 11/04/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1634 Doc: 13 Filed: 11/04/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:

John Rodgers Burnley seeks to appeal the district court’s orders granting Burnley’s

in forma pauperis application and granting in part Defendants’ motion to enforce and

referring the case in part to a magistrate judge for resolution, as well as two 2023 settlement

agreements entered in a previous lawsuit. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over

final orders,

, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders,

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

(1949). The district court’s orders and the settlement agreements that Burnley seeks to

appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.

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