Bobby Foxx, Plaintiff-appellant, v. J. Irving Baines; Landi Faulk; Sgt. Messinger; Stevesleigh; Joe Doe, (food Service); Mary Doe, (food Service);john Doe, (physician's Assistant); Mary Doe, (physician'sassistant); Joe Avant, Defendants-appellees.andcity of Suffolk; Virginia Department of Corrections;robert Buckler, Defendants.bobby Foxx, Plaintiff-appellant, v. J. Irving Baines; Landi Faulk; Sgt. Messinger; Stevensleigh; Joe Doe, (food Service); Mary Doe, (food Service);john Doe, (physician's Assistant); Mary Doe, (physician'sassistant); Joe Avant; Robert Buckler, Defendants-appellees,andcity of Suffolk; Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants, 907 F.2d 1137 (4th Cir. 1990)
Annotate this CaseAppeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District Judge. (C/A No. 89-30)
Bobby Foxx, appellant pro se.
Stephen Royce Jackson, Willcox & Savage, P.C., John Franklin, III, Taylor & Walker, P.C., Norfolk, Va., for appellees.
E.D. Va.
DISMISSED IN NO. 89-6423; AFFIRMED IN NO. 90-7317.
Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and CHAPMAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Bobby Foxx appeals two orders of the district court entered in the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. In No. 89-6423, the district court entered an order dismissing Foxx's conditions of confinement claims.* We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 this Court has jurisdiction over appeals from final orders. A final order is one which disposes of all issues in dispute as to all parties. It "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945).
As the order appealed from is not a final order, it is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The district court has not directed entry of final judgment as to particular claims or parties under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), nor is the order appealable under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1292. Finally, the order is not appealable as a collateral order under Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).
In No. 90-7317, the district court entered an order dismissing Foxx's medical claim. In light of Foxx's clear intent to appeal the dismissal of the entire complaint, we reviewed the merits of the conditions of confinement claims as well as the medical claim. However, our review of the record and the district court's opinions disclose that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Foxx v. Baines, C/A No. 89-30-N (E.D. Va. Nov. 28, 1989; Apr. 3, 1990). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented on this record and argument would not aid the decisional process.
No. 89-6423--DISMISSED.
No. 90-7317--AFFIRMED.
Foxx alleged that the following conditions at the Suffolk, Virginia, City Jail were unconstitutional: inadequate nutrition, improper law library, unsanitary toilet facilities, overcrowding, vermin and insects, restricted visitation, high cost of canteen items, and interference with the grievance system
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
