Momolu Sirleaf v. David Robinson, No. 16-7361 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7361 MOMOLU V.S. SIRLEAF, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DAVID ROBINSON, Chief of Operations, VDOC, sued individually and in official capacity; WALL, Prison Chaplin, GRCC, in official and individual capacity; HAROLD CLARK, Director, VADOC, in his official and individual capacity; EDDIE PEARSON, Warden, GRCC, in his official and individual capacity; CAROLINE PARKER, Warden, GRCC, in her official and individual capacity; D. WILMOUTH, Warden, GRCC, in his official and individual capacity; VARGO, Warden, GRCC, in her official and individual capacity; KEEFE, GRCC, in his official and individual capacity; COLONEL JARRATT, Supervising Guard, GRCC/VADOC, in his official and individual capacity; GRACE, GRCC, in his/her official and individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:15-cv-00339-MHL-RCY) Submitted: February 7, 2017 Decided: February 14, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Momolu V.S. Sirleaf, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Momolu V.S. Sirleaf seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his civil action without prejudice and giving him an opportunity to reinstate his action. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders of the district court, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The orders that Sirleaf seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Central Va. Legal Aid, 807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th See Goode v. Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we deny the pending motion and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the 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.
