Rodney Hays v. Town of Gauley Bridge, West Vi, No. 11-1356 (4th Cir. 2011)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1356 RODNEY E. HAYS, Plaintiff Appellant, v. TOWN OF GAULEY BRIDGE, WEST VIRGINIA, a West Virginia Municipal Corporation; WILLIAM KINCAID, individually and in his official capacity as Judge of the Gauley Bridge Municipal Court; SEAN WHIPKEY, individually and in his official capacity as a Town of Gauley Bridge Officer; HEATH WHIPKEY, individually and in his official capacity as a Town of Gauley Bridge Police Officer; CHARLES BURKHAMER, individually and in his official capacity as a Town of Gauley Bridge Police Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (2:09-cv-01272) Submitted: July 21, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge. GREGORY, Decided: Circuit Judges, July 25, 2011 and HAMILTON, Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodney E. Hays, Appellant Pro Se. Vaughn Sizemore, WYANT, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. BAILEY & Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Rodney E. Hays seeks to appeal the district court s order granting partial summary judgment to defendants on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. 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). to appeal is neither a final interlocutory or collateral order. appeal for lack of jurisdiction. order The order Hays seeks nor an appealable Accordingly, we dismiss the 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 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.