Albert Page v. A. Padula, No. 09-6903 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6903 ALBERT D. PAGE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. A. J. PADULA, Warden; ROBERT WARD, Directional Divisional Operations; JOHN BROOKS, Associate Warden; JENNIFER LIVINGSTON, Correctional Officer; JON OZMINT, Director; RON CRIBB, Captain; GENNA CAIN, Officer; MS. SIMON, mailroom personnel at Lee Correctional Institution, Defendants Appellees, and MS. WHITNEY, Institution, mailroom personnel at Lee Correctional Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Bristow Marchant, Magistrate Judge. (9:08-cv-01660-HFF-BM) Submitted: November 19, 2009 Decided: Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. December 2, 2009 Albert D. Page, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Lindemann, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Albert D. Page seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the district court s order denying, inter alia, Page s motions for orders granting him leave to depose correctional officers and prison inmates and compelling the production of various documents. 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). The order Page seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss the 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.