William Judy v. Kathy Williams, No. 17-7340 (4th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7340 WILLIAM LEE JUDY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KATHY WILLIAMS, Housing Unit Manager at FCC Petersburg in Petersburg, VA; IAN CONNER; SEVERAL NAMED BUT UNKNOWN SEARCH TEAM MEMBERS; NAMED BUT UNKNOWN REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY COORDINATOR; NAMED BUT UNKNOWN INSTITUTIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY COORDINATOR; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:16-cv-00345-AWA-LRL) Submitted: January 30, 2018 Decided: February 2, 2018 Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Lee Judy, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Douglas Jansen, Kent Pendleton Porter, Assistant United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: William Lee Judy seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing the United States from his pending action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1), 2671-2680 (2012). 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 Judy seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Baird v. Palmer, 114 F.3d 39, 43 (4th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss and 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.