Johnathan Lee X, Plaintiff-appellant, v. George M. Hampton, Sr.; Morris L. Ridley; Clarence L.jackson, Jr.; Frank E. Saunders; Leonard S. Randolph;lewis W. Hurst; Moses Lewis; Edward Murray; Larry Platt;david A. Williams; Randall Kahelski; Layton Lester; Geraldbaliles; Hugh Cassada, Defendants-appellees.johnathan Lee X, Plaintiff-appellant, v. George M. Hampton, Sr.; Morris L. Ridley; Clarence L.jackson, Jr.; Frank E. Saunders; Leonard S. Randolph;lewis W. Hurst; Moses Lewis; Edward Murray; Larry Platt;david A. Williams; Randall Kahelski; Layton Lester; Geraldbaliles; Hugh Cassada, Defendants-appellees, 974 F.2d 1331 (4th Cir. 1992)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 974 F.2d 1331 (4th Cir. 1992) Submitted: July 15, 1992Decided: September 4, 1992

Johnathan Lee X, Appellant Pro Se.

Robert Harkness Herring, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before PHILLIPS and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:


OPINION

Johnathan Lee X appeals from the district court's orders denying relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988). His first notice of appeal, which gave rise to the appeal in 91-7596, was filed prior to the district court's final order. Further, the order X appealed was not an appealable non-final order, 28 U.S.C. § 1292, nor was it an appealable collateral order, Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). Therefore, this Court does not have jurisdiction over the appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988). We dismiss that appeal as interlocutory.

Our review of the record and the district court's opinion in 926615, which was filed after the district court entered the final order in the action, discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. X v. Hampton, No. CA-89-432-N (E.D. Va. July 11, 1991). 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.

91-7596, DISMISSED 92-6615, AFFIRMED

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.