Momolu Sirleaf v. Harold Clark, No. 18-7311 (4th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-7311 PRIEST MOMOLU V.S. SIRLEAF, JR., As Next Friend for the Commonwealth of Israel, et al., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE; A. DAVID ROBINSON; EDDIE PEARSON; MARK E. ENGELKE; CHAPLAIN HOLLENBAUGH; D. Y. KINSLEY; CYNTHIA PUTNEY; LOUISE G. GOODE; BARROWS; C. BOONE; HANNAH M. LAUCK; Judge; K. PHILLIPS; S. TAPP; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; K. WHITHURST; RODERICK C. YOUNG, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:17-cv-00539-HEH-DJN) Submitted: April 10, 2019 Decided: April 30, 2019 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Momolu V.S. Sirleaf, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Momolu V.S. Sirleaf seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his civil action without prejudice and denying reconsideration. We 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 orders that Sirleaf seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, 807 F.3d 619, 629-30 (4th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, deny the pending motions, and remand the case to the district court with instructions to give Sirleaf another opportunity to amend his complaint. 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.