James Lee, Jr. v. Patrick Gurney, No. 09-7998 (4th Cir. 2010)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7998 JAMES LOUIS LEE, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PATRICK GURNEY, Assistant Warden, Nottoway Correctional Center, in Official and Individual Capacity; FRED SCHILLING, M.D., Director, in Official and Individual Capacity; HARVARD STEPHENS, M.D., Chief Physician, in Official and Individual Capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:08-cv-00161-RLW) Submitted: January 14, 2010 Decided: January 22, 2010 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Louis Lee, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Lee, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants Patrick Gurney, Fred Schilling, and Harvard Stephens. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). Because proceedings are ongoing as to one defendant in the district court, and the district court did not direct entry of judgment as to the other parties pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), the order Lee seeks to appeal is neither a final interlocutory or collateral order. order nor an appealable See Robinson v. Parke-Davis & Co., 685 F.2d 912, 913 (4th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, we deny Lee s motion to appoint counsel, and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2

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.