George Delaney v. Brandon Mullen, No. 17-7178 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7178 GEORGE FREDERICK DELANEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BRANDON MULLEN, Sheriff Deputy, sued individually and in his official capacity; JACOB T. MCNAMARA, Sheriff Deputy, sued individually and in his official capacity; KENNETH STOLLE, Sheriff, sued individually and in his official capacity; YOLANDA VINES, R.N., sued individually and in her official capacity; ELIZIBETH NICHOLSON, L.P.N., sued individually and in her official capacity; M. BAPTISTE, Sheriff Deputy, sued individually and in his or her official capacity; B. ORCHARD, Sheriff Deputy, sued individually and in his or her official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-00779-CMH-TCB) Submitted: November 21, 2017 Decided: November 28, 2017 Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Frederick Delaney, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: George Frederick Delaney seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action against some, but not all, Defendants. 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). The order Delaney seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 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.
