Ophelia De'Lonta v. Harold Clarke, No. 12-7634 (4th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7634 OPHELIA AZRIEL DE LONTA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HAROLD CLARKE, Director, VADOC; G. K. WASHINGTON, Regional Admin; LARRY EDMONDS, Warden, BKCC; MAJOR C. DAVIS, Chief of Security; DAVIS, Institutional Investigator; AGENT WATSON, Internal Affairs Unit; LISA LANG, Staff Psychologist; SARAH PRUITT, Correctional Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:11-cv-00483-JCT-RSB) Submitted: December 20, 2012 Decided: December 27, 2012 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ophelia Azriel De Lonta, Appellant Pro Se. John Michael Parsons Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Antonio Pierre Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF A. PIERRE JACKSON, P.C., Hampden-Sydney, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ophelia Azriel De Lonta seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing all but one Defendant, Sarah Pruitt, in De Lonta s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action. 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 De Lonta Corp., seeks 337 to U.S. appeal 541, is 545-46 neither a (1949). final The order order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, as it disposes of fewer than all the parties involved in this lawsuit. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not 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.