Wayne Davis v. Community Development Personne, No. 09-1812 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1812 WAYNE L. DAVIS, Plaintiff Appellant, v. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PERSONNEL; RACHEL O'DWYER FLYNN; ART DAHLBERG; FARRAL HENDERSON; BONNIE FRIEDMAN; ROY W. EIDEM; ALAN W. MCMAHAM; DYETT ELLIS; MICHELLE COWARD; KEISHA STEPHENSON; DWIGHT C. JONES, Mayor, City of Richmond; TIMOTHY KAINE, Governor; WILLIAM C. SHELTON, State Director, the Jackson Center; NORMAN B. SALES, Richmond City Attorney; GREGORY A. LUKANUSKI, Assistant Attorney, Office of the City Attorney; BILL MIMS, Attorney General, Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:09-cv-00133-REP) Submitted: November 9, 2009 Decided: December 22, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wayne L. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Wayne L. Davis seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing his complaint without prejudice. may exercise jurisdiction only over final This court orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). Cohen v. The order Davis seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, jurisdiction. we dismiss the appeal for lack of We deny Davis s motion to reconsider our previous order denying his motion for stay pending appeal. 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 2

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.