Albert Randolph v. Loretta Kelly, No. 10-7447 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7447 ALBERT RANDOLPH, Plaintiff Appellant, v. LORETTA KELLY, Warden-Chief; KEITH DAWKINS, Unit Manager Housing Unit 4; R. WALLACE, Treatment Program Supervisor; D. JONES/SHIFTLETT, Mrs., former TPS; D. HUDSON, Grievance Coordinator; D. BERNADO, Mrs., Grievance Office/Designer; WITT, Mrs., Offender Records/Designer; BAILEY, Mrs., Medical Administrator; WEBB, Mrs., LPN Nurse; G.F. SIVELS, Mrs., Regional Ombudsman; DAVID ROBINSON, Regional Director; EVANS, Mrs., Offender Records, Designee, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:08-cv-00708-RLW) Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: December 29, 2010 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Albert Randolph, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Albert Randolph seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his motion for summary judgment on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. 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, 545-46 (1949). is neither a final collateral order. order The order Randolph seeks to appeal nor an appealable interlocutory or Accordingly, we deny Randolph s motion for transcript at government expense and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the 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.