Anthony Bussie v. Judge Keenan, No. 16-6943 (4th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6943 ANTHONY BUSSIE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JUDGE KEENAN; JUDGE FLOYD; JUDGE HARRIS; JUDGE BRITT; JUDGE BUMB, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:16-cv-00238-RAJ-RJK) Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 22, 2016 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Bussie, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Anthony Bussie seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his petition for a writ of mandamus for failure to allege sufficient facts in support of his petition. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 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, 545-47 (1949). Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by filing an amended petition, we conclude that the order Bussie seeks to appeal is neither a final interlocutory or collateral order. order nor an appealable See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). jurisdiction Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of and remand the case to the district instructions to allow Bussie to amend his petition. 807 F.3d at 630. court with See Goode, 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 AND REMANDED 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.