James Williams v. Michael Studivent, No. 10-2039 (4th Cir. 2010)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2039 JAMES A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MICHAEL STUDIVENT, Official Capacity; TOMMY STEVENS, Individual and Official Capacity; DEBORAH LANKFORD, Individual and Official Capacity; SAMUEL LANKFORD, Individual and Official Capacity; LANKFORD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, Official Capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:09-cv-00414-TDS-WWD) Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: December 22, 2010 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James A. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Studivent, Appellee Pro Se; William L. Hill, FRAZIER, FRANKLIN, HILL & FURY, RLLP, Greensboro, North Carolina; Sarah Helen Roane, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James A. Williams seeks to appeal the district court s order adopting the dismissing his 42 Defendants Samuel magistrate U.S.C. Lankford, judge s § 1983 recommendation (2006) Deborah complaint Lankford, and and against Lankford Protective Services. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over 28 final orders, 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, 545-46 (1949). Because the district court has not adjudicated all of Williams s claims against all the Defendants, the order Williams seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.