Rhasahn Grant v. Mrs. Ward, No. 18-6002 (4th Cir. 2018)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6002 RHASAHN L. GRANT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MRS. WARD, Corrections Officer; MR. DAY, Corrections Officer; MR. J. BATEMAN, Chief of Security; MS./MRS. JANE DOE, Correctional Officer Sergeant; MR. JOHN DOE, Correctional Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00762-AJT-TCB) Submitted: May 24, 2018 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rhasahn L. Grant, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Decided: May 30, 2018 PER CURIAM: The district court directed that Rhasahn L. Grant file an amended complaint and particularize his claims. After the district court dismissed the complaint for failure to comply with this order, the court discovered that Grant had filed an amended complaint, which had been docketed as a new case. The district court then reopened Grant’s initial action and directed that the complaint filed in Grant’s second action be filed as his amended complaint in the initial action. From that order, Grant noted this appeal. 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 Grant 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 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.