Davis v. Roessler

Full title: CURTISS DAVIS, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EDWIN C. ROESSLER, JR., Chief…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Aug 22, 2022

No. 22-1179 (4th Cir. Aug. 22, 2022)

Opinion

22-1179

08-22-2022

CURTISS DAVIS, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EDWIN C. ROESSLER, JR., Chief of Police; WUSA9 News; THE WASHINGTON POST; CLINTON E. BEACH, Officer; JEREMY HOFFMAN, Officer, Defendants-Appellees, and SUSAN PEREZ; ANA ELIZABETH RIVERA-CRUZ; PEDRO BONILLA; EL CARBONERO, LLC, Defendants.

Curtiss Davis, III, Appellant Pro Se. Brent J. Schultheis, FAIRFAX COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Fairfax, Virginia; Laurin Howard Mills, SAMEK, WERTHER &MILLS, LLC, Alexandria, Virginia; Perry F. Austin, Nicholas G. Gamse, WILLIAMS &CONNOLLY LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

UNPUBLISHED

Submitted: August 18, 2022

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Rossie David Alston, Jr., District Judge. (1:20-cv-00992-RDA-TCB)

Curtiss Davis, III, Appellant Pro Se.

Brent J. Schultheis, FAIRFAX COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Fairfax, Virginia; Laurin Howard Mills, SAMEK, WERTHER &MILLS, LLC, Alexandria, Virginia; Perry F. Austin, Nicholas G. Gamse, WILLIAMS &CONNOLLY LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Before WYNN, THACKER, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM.

Curtiss Davis, III, seeks to appeal the district court's order granting the motions to dismiss filed by certain Defendants in Davis' pro se civil action.^[*] This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order that Davis seeks to appeal is neither a final order, given that litigation on his remaining claims against other Defendants is ongoing, nor is it an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss this 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

[*] As noted in the district court's order, three of the individual Defendants did not file motions to dismiss.