Opinion
No. 13-7099
10-25-2013
ALEXANDER OTIS MATTHEWS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. TED HULL; R. MICHELLE LEWIS; SERGEANT MARTIN; JOHN/JANE DOE, Recreation Supervisor; JOHN/JANE DOE, Director of Medical Services; JOHN/JANE DOE, Cleaning Supervisor; JOHN/JANE DOE, Food Services Supervisor; JOHN/JANE DOE, Unit Nurse; NORTHERN NECK REGIONAL JAIL BOARD AUTHORITY MEMBERS, Defendants - Appellees.
Alexander Matthews, Appellant Pro Se. Broderick Coleman Dunn, Alexander Francuzenko, COOK CRAIG & FRANCUZENKO, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O'Grady, District Judge. (1:13-cv-00450-LO-JFA) Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alexander Matthews, Appellant Pro Se. Broderick Coleman Dunn, Alexander Francuzenko, COOK CRAIG & FRANCUZENKO, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Alexander Matthews seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion to remand, and granting in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The court directed Matthews to file a particularized complaint regarding claims of cruel and unusual punishment and denial of access to the courts. The court also directed Matthews to include a statement regarding exhaustion of these claims. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Matthews seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we grant the Appellees' motion to dismiss the appeal as interlocutory 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.
Matthews complied with the order and the case is proceeding in the district court.
The district court did not certify the order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
--------
DISMISSED