Warren Chase v. The Prior and Present DOC Comm, No. 09-6225 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6225 WARREN CHASE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THE PRIOR AND PRESENT DOC COMMISSIONERS OF CORRECTIONS; KATHLEEN GREEN, Warden; SIMON WAINWRIGHT, Warden; TYRONE CROWDER; JOHN S. WOLFE; CALVIN WILSON; PATRICA SHEARIN, Warden; D. HANSEN, Major; C. N. PEAY, Major; J. MAYFIELD, Lieutenant; T. DONNELL, Lieutenant; R. WALKER, Lieutenant; J. E. PRICE, Sergeant; M. MONTGOMERY, Sergeant; T. MARTIN, Sergeant; T. SMITH; T. BRAWNER, Sergeant; T. BROWN, Sergeant; D. MAYZCK, Sergeant; R. THOMPSON, Sergeant; S. FLOID; D. WIGGINS, Sergeant; K. COOPER, Sergeant; T. RICHARDSON, Sergeant; H. TALIB, Sergeant; M. WINN, Sergeant; E. THOMPSON, Sergeant; S. PHILLIPS, Sergeant; A. SCOTT, Sergeant; D. GREEN, Sergeant; E. PULLEY, Sergeant; D. MANGUM, Sergeant; M. ROSS, Sergeant; D. OLIVER, Sergeant; D. CHASE, Sergeant; D. ALEXANDER, Sergeant; L. BATTLE, Sergeant; F. SMITH, Sergeant; B. STOLKS, Sergeant; J. A. BAILEY, Sergeant, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:08-cv-00834-CCB) Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. June 29, 2009 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Warren Chase, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane Weber, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Warren Chase seeks to appeal the district order denying his motion for a default judgment. court s This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final 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); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). to appeal is neither a final interlocutory or collateral order. appeal for lack of jurisdiction. for injunctive relief. The order Chase seeks order nor an appealable Accordingly, we dismiss the We also deny Chase s request 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.