David Meyers v. Director of Action Alliance Co, No. 21-6672 (4th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-6672 DAVID MEYERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF ACTION ALLIANCE COMMONWEALTH OF VAPREA HOTLINE CENTER; ROSE DURBIN, PREA Coordinator; J. BROWN, SX1 - Unit Manager; OAKEON, SX1 Transportation Officer; PEODE, SX1 Physician; I. HAMILTON, Warden; WHITE; MAJOR RUFFIN; SPECIAL AGENT HUNTER, SIU; OFFICER BROWN, SXI Intel Officer; OFFICER PERRY, SXI Intel Officer; NATO R. MOSLEY, Grievance Coordinator; DANIEL MCGOWAN, Sexual Abuse Hotline Referral Mgr.; DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA SEXUAL AND COMESTIC PREA ACTION ALLIANCE COMMONWEALTH OF VA; TRACY, Ext. 500 Emotional Support Clerk; CHRISTINE CARROLL; T. HARVEY; PAUL HAYMES; JAMES JIM PARKS; GAIL JONES; KIETH DAWKINS; A. DAVID ROBINSON; HAROLD CLARKE, Director; LARREN STAPLETON; AMY SCHYLER, PREA Analyst; K. CROSBY, Eastern Regional Obmudsman, VADOC; A. WELLINTON, PREA Manager; IVAN GILMORE, Warden; D. HINES; MS. HARRIS; WHITE, Assistant Warden; BRYANT, Assistant Warden; M. WALKER; ISRAEL HAMILTON, Warden; COUNSELOR ASHBURN; T. BROWN; S. VANCAMPEN; LT. A. BROWN; LT. N. LABOY; M. PERRY; A. NELSON; MR. DUNLEVY; MS. DARBY; J. MOSLEY, Sussex I State Prison Grievance Coordinator; E. P. WITT; K CARROLL, Sussex I State Prison Grievance Coordinator; S. N. ATKINS, Sussex I State Prison Grievance Coordinator; SGT. CRAFT; OFC. OAKEON; LT. RICKS; SGT. A. WALKUP; SGT. DIAL; H. SPENCER; OFC. TAYLOR; R. BRITT, Counselor; W. COLSIN; LT. CURRY; MS. HALL, QMHP; NURSE WALKER; LAUNDRY OFC. BAINES; OFC. STEVENS; OFC. JENKINS; JOHN DOE, SXI - Male Black Strike Force Prison Guard; DR. M. PICIO; DR. ULEP; DR. ERIC BUSKIRK; NURSE KITTRELL; PHARMACY NURSE CUNNINGHAM; LT. JACKSON; CAPTAIN D. ROUNDTREE; MAJOR HIBBS; NURSE CARTER; SGT. WYCHE; MS. MABREY, IHO; J. FELTNER, IHO; J. RANDOLPH; KRUSE, Fiscal Tech; A. MILLER, Mail Clerk; OFC. BERNARD; OFC. CORNELIUS; ARMOR INC. HEALTH SERVICES, Defendants - Appellees. No. 21-6675 DAVID MEYERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MAYOR LEVAR STONEY, Mayor of the City of Richmond VA; IVAN GILMORE, Warden of Sussex I State Prison; MARK RANKIN HERRING; RICHARD CARSON VORHIS, Assistant Attorney General, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:20-cv-00122-AWA-DEM; 2:20-cv00469-AWA-DEM) Submitted: June 14, 2021 Decided: June 29, 2021 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Meyers, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, David Meyers has filed interlocutory appeals from the district court’s nonfinal order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction. Before considering an appeal, we must ensure we have jurisdiction. See Clark v. Cartledge, 829 F.3d 303, 305 (4th Cir. 2016) (recognizing our obligation to consider questions of jurisdiction sua sponte). We may exercise jurisdiction only over final decisions, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 54547 (1949). “Generally, a district court order is not final until it has resolved all claims as to all parties.” Hunter v. Town of Mocksville, 789 F.3d 389, 402 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, Meyers appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice all of Meyers’ motions in these two cases except for his motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Because the court has yet to resolve all the claims and no exception applies, we lack jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss these appeals for lack of jurisdiction. We deny as moot Meyers’ motions for leave to proceed without prepayment of fees under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 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.