Walter Lee v. 107th United States Congress, No. 16-1033 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1033 WALTER LEE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. 107TH UNITED STATES CONGRESS; JOHN WARNER, Senator, R-VA, In his official capacity as a member of the 107th United States Congress and Senatorial Representative of the Plaintiffs civil rights; GEORGE ALLEN, Senator, in his official capacity as a member of the 107th United States Congress and Senatorial Representative of the Plaintiffs civil rights; JOANN DAVIS, Rep, R-VA, in her official capacity as a member of the 107th United States Congress and Legislative Representative of the Plaintiffs civil rights, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:02-cv-00706-REP) Submitted: July 20, 2016 Before GREGORY, Judges. Chief Judge, Decided: and DUNCAN Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter Lee, Appellant Pro Se. and July 27, 2016 AGEE, Circuit Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Walter Lee seeks to appeal the district court’s order and the district court clerk’s letter stating the requirements for filing an action in forma pauperis. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders of the district court, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order and letter that Lee seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable Accordingly, we deny interlocutory leave to proceed or in collateral forma dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before orders. pauperis and We dispense with contentions this court are 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.
