Robert Dougherty v. Dana Lawhorne, No. 19-6964 (4th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6964 ROBERT W. DOUGHERTY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DANA LAWHORNE, Sheriff, Alexandria Adult Detention Center; SCHULER, Chief Deputy (Major), Alexandria Adult Detention Center; SERGEANT HALL, Alexandria Adult Detention Center; SERGEANT MENSAH, Alexandria Adult Detention Center (Law Library); DEPUTY ANDERSON, Alexandria Adult Detention Center (Mailroom); IVAN T. GILMORE, Warden, Coffewood Correctional Center; DONALD GOURDINE, Inst. Program Dir. and Inst. Classification, Coffewood Correctional Center; MAJOR M. BRYANT, Chief of Security and Institutional Review Officer (Discipline), Coffewood Correctional Center; C. A. WARD, Chief of Security and Institutional Review Officer (Discipline), Coffewood Correctional Center; ANITA B. LONG, (Captain) Unit Manager Coffewood Correctional Center; CAPTAIN S. A. JONES, Watch Commander, Grievance Hearing Officer, and Institutional Review-Discipline; LIEUTENANT BRICE, Unit Lieutenant (retired), Coffewood Correctional Center; L. P. JONES, (Lieutenant) Unit Manager, Coffewood Correctional Center; LIEUTENANT R. GALLAGHER, Unit Lieutenant, Coffewood Correctional Center; LIEUTENANT M. S. MILLER, Custody, Shift Supervisor, Coffewood Correctional Center; SERGEANT R. LEWIS, Custody, Hearing Officer, Coffewood Correctional Center; D. P. SACRA, Sergeant, Custody, Coffewood Correctional Center; SERGEANT MONROE, Custody, Coffewood Correctional Center; CORPORAL WALTER, Coffewood Correctional Center; CORPORAL JENKINS, Coffewood Correctional Center; CORPORAL ROCHES, Coffewood Correctional Center; CORPORAL HENSLEY, Coffewood Correctional Center; CORPORAL POWELL, Former Mail Room Officer, Coffewood Correctional Center; CORPORAL NEWCOMB, Coffewood Correctional Center; CORPORAL HEFRIGHT, Coffewood Correctional Center; CORPORAL F. O. ALASBARRIENTOS, Coffewood Correctional Center; T. L. CRICKEMBERGER, Hearing Officer (of record), Coffewood Correctional Center; M.S. KIMBERLY TUCKER, Grievance Officer, Coffewood Correctional Center; MS. P. C. ZWIGART, Secretary to Warden Gilmore, Coffewood Correctional Center; MS. PEGGY TATRO, Administrator, Mediko Correctional Healthcare (contracted provider), Coffewood Correctional Center; MS. S. COOPER, Treatment and Law Library, Coffewood Correctional Center; A. DAVID ROBINSON, Chief of Corrections Operations, Virginia Department of Corrections; WENDY S. HOBBS, Regional Administrator Grievances, Virginia Department of Corrections; MARCUS M. HODGES, Regional Administrator, Virginia Department of Corrections; KAREN L. STAPLETON, Offender Dicipline Manager, Virginia Department of Corrections; KAREN D. BROWN, Chairman, Virginia Parole Board; HELEN W. MORTON, Hearing Officer, Virginia Parole Board; HELEN W. HALL-GREEN, Hearing Officer, Virginia Parole Board; IRIS STALLWORTH, District 29-Fairfax, Virginia Parole Board; MINIAR F. STONE, Parole Board Member, Virginia Parole Board; B. J. HICE, Hearing Officer, Virginia Parole Board; SERGEANT D. P. HAPPE, Custody, Coffeewood Correctional Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00302-LO-IDD) Submitted: September 24, 2019 Decided: September 27, 2019 Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert W. Dougherty, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Robert W. Dougherty seeks to appeal the district court’s order directing him to file an amended 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, 54546 (1949). The order Dougherty seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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.