James Roudabush, Jr. v. Lieutenant Josiah, No. 15-7662 (4th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7662 JAMES LESTER ROUDABUSH, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LIEUTENANT JOSIAH; SERGEANT JESSUP; CHIEF STERN; DEPUTY STERN; CAPTAIN MILANO; DANA LAWHORNE, Sheriff; A. ANDERSON, AUSA; C. M. HILTON, Usdc-Edva, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:13-cv-00467-RBS-TEM) Submitted: January 14, 2016 Decided: January 20, 2016 Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Lester Roudabush, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Broderick Coleman Dunn, Alexander Francuzenko, COOK CRAIG & FRANCUZENKO, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Lester Roudabush, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his civil action without prejudice. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), collateral orders. 54(b); Cohen 545-47 v. district court certain interlocutory and 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. Beneficial (1949). and Because may be Indus. the Loan Corp., deficiencies remedied by the 337 U.S. identified filing of an 541, by the amended complaint, we conclude that the order Roudabush seeks to appeal is neither a final collateral order. order nor an appealable interlocutory or Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., ___ F.3d ___, No. 14-1939, 2015 WL 8289046, at *3-*4 (4th Cir. Dec. 9, 2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, jurisdiction. we dismiss the appeal for lack of 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 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.