Aaron Burns v. David Simmons, No. 17-6520 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6520 AARON M. BURNS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DAVID SIMMONS, Superintendent; CAPTAIN COWAN, Chief of Security, HRRJ; SERGEANT EPPERSON, Unit Manager, HU 1; SERGEANT MOORE, Unit Manager, HU 1; SERGEANT MURPHY, Unit Manager, HU 1; SERGEANT JONES, Unit Manager, HU 1; SERGEANT PHILLIPS, Unit Manager, HU 1; JOHN OR JANE DOE, Medical Director, Defendants – Appellees, and JIM O'SULLIVAN, Sheriff; JOHN DOE, Superintendent; SERGEANT ELLIS, Internal Affairs, HRRJ; LIEUTENANT WHITEHEAD, Watch Commander; JOHN DOES I-X, Pod Officers (HU 1/2); JOHN/JANE DOES I-X, Pod Officers 3/1; JOHN/JANE DOES I-X, Pod Officers HU 1/4; JOHN/JANE DOES I-X, Pod Officers 1/3; DOE, Mailroom; JANE DOE, Intake Property Officer; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MARTIN, Chesapeake Correctional Center (CCC); CORRECTIONAL OFFICER PARRISH, Chesapeake Correctional Center (CCC); WARDEN MANIS, Warden, Nottoway Correctional Center, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:16-cv-01246-LO-TCB) Submitted: August 17, 2017 Decided: August 22, 2017 Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Aaron M. Burns, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Aaron M. Burns seeks to appeal from the district court’s order denying reconsideration of the dismissal without prejudice of his claims against Defendants at Chesapeake Correctional Center, Nottoway Correctional Center, and Western Tidewater Regional Jail based on improper joinder of claims, and dismissing two of the four claims he asserted against Defendants at Hampton Roads Regional Jail in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 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 order Burns 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 this 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.
