Rashid Al-Amin v. Gene Johnson, No. 10-6786 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6786 RASHID QAWI AL-AMIN, Plaintiff Appellant, v. GENE JOHNSON, in his official capacity; LINDA SHEAR, in her individual and official capacities; RUFUS FLEMING, in his individual and official capacities; G. P. WILLIAMS, in his individual and official capacities; S. J. ADVENT, in his individual and official capacities; S. BAYLOR, in his individual and official capacities; D. M. FERGUSON, in his/her individual and official capacities; M. L. POPE, in his individual and official capacities; MR. FERROW, in his individual and official capacities; CHARLIE DAVIS, in his individual and official capacities; BLAINE BROCK, Food Service Manager, an employee of Compass Group USA, Inc. d/b/a Canteen Correctional Services; CLYDE ALDERMAN, in his individual and official capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:04-cv-00346-RAJ) Submitted: November 18, 2010 Before SHEDD and Circuit Judge. AGEE, Circuit Decided: Judges, and Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. November 30, 2010 HAMILTON, Senior Rashid Qawi Al-Amin, Appellant Pro Se. Mark R. Davis, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Paul Graham Beers, GLENN, FELDMANN, DARBY & GOODLATTE, Roanoke, Virginia; Peter M. Coppinger, Gregory D. Cote, MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Rashid Qawi Al-Amin seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing one of the defendants as a party. court may exercise jurisdiction only over final This 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, 545-46 (1949). The order Al-Amin seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before Accordingly, we We dispense with contentions the court are 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.
