Dana S. Graham, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Joseph William Kaestner; Janie L. Edmonds; Medford W.howard; Joan Williams; Iva R. Purdy; Joel G. Clarke;james M. Lumpkin; Robert C. Burkholder, Jr.; Linwood T.wells, Jr.; Thomas N. Nance, Defendants-appellees,andtheodore N.i. Tondrowski; Christopher Hackman, Defendants, 977 F.2d 572 (4th Cir. 1992)
Annotate this CaseAppeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Dana S. Graham, Appellant Pro Se.
Harry Margerum Johnson, Jr., Stacy F. Garrett, III, Commonwealth's Attorney's Office, Richmond, Virginia; Deborah Shea O'Toole, Cowan & Owen, Richmond, Virginia; Lee Melchor, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia; Joseph William Kaestner, Kaestner, Spieth & Gays, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
E.D. Va.
DISMISSED.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Dana S. Graham appeals from the district court's order dismissing claims against nine of eleven defendants under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6) for failure to state a claim. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This Court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
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.
