Hansen v. Ellis, No. 06-6929 (4th Cir. 2006)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6929 BERT JOHN HANSEN, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BENJAMIN ELLIS, PA-C; VINCENT GORE, M.D.; KATIE HAMLIN, R.N.; PAUL KOLLAND, VCE Shop Manager; JOYCE COTTON, VCE Shop Supervisor; JAMES MALONE, VCE Shop Supervisor; GEORGE HINKLE, Chief Warden of GRCC; MARIE VARGO, S-2 Warden; CLYDE ALDERMAN, Administrative Staff Specialist Senior; TYRONE SLOAN, Lieutenant, HU4-S2 Building Supervisor; KEVIN BONNER, Lieutenant, Yard Crew Supervisor; SCOTTY, Sergeant, Complex Crew Supervisor; JAMES THOMAS; MCGRUE BOOKER, Job Coordinator, Counselor; SHARON JOHNSON, VCE Manager; JOHN AUSBON, Education & Vocation Principal (DCE), Defendants - Appellees, and NURSES, Greenville Correctional Center; SERGEANT MILLER, HU4-S2 Building Supervisor; PRINCIPAL OSBORNE, a/k/a Osgood, Principal of Schools/Vocational; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER EVERSON; MRS. WOODSON, Grievance Office; MRS. KINSLEY, Grievance Office, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (3:05-cv-00437-REP) Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: November 6, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bert John Hansen, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Edward Joseph McNelis III, Elizabeth Martin Muldowney, John David McChesney, RAWLS & MCNELIS, PC, Richmond, Virginia; Banci Enga Tewolde, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Bert John Hansen, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court s order denying several motions in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Hansen seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we We deny Hansen s motions for appointment of counsel and to compel the district court to enforce a June 22, 2006 order. 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. DISMISSED - 3 -

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.