Peggy Rhem v. Virginia Beach Police Dept., No. 17-1922 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1922 PEGGY RHEM, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. VIRGINIA BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT; OFFICER BURNEY, Virginia Beach Police Department; KEMPSVILLE BEHAVIOR HEALTH; DR. DEVITT; SARA ROGERS, Head Nurse; VIRGINIA BEACH SCHOOL DISTRICT; MR. MILLER, Bayside High principal; CPS; JESSICA OWENS; EBONY LUCK; ALEXANDRA WOOD, Virginia Beach Attorney; CHRISTIANNA CUNNINGHAM-DOUGHERTY, City Attorney; JUDGE BULLOCK, Virginia Beach Judge Juvenile Department; ESTHER WIGGINS, Virginia Beach Judge Juvenile Department, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:17-cv-00290-RGD-RJK) Submitted: November 21, 2017 Decided: November 27, 2017 Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Peggy Rhem, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Peggy Rhem seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her civil complaint without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. 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, 545-46 (1949). Because it is possible that Rhem could cure the defects in her complaint through amendment, the order she seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Blitz v. Napolitano, 700 F.3d 733, 738 (4th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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 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.