Opinion
No. 16-6208
04-22-2016
ABDUL-HAMZA WALI MUHAMMAD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; HAROLD W. CLARKE; DEBRA D. GARDNER; A. DAVID ROBINSON; GEORGE K. WASHINGTON; P. SCARBERRY, FODA; RANDALL CHARLES. MATHENA; JOHN F. WALRATH; SHERRI SHORTRIDGE; JEFFREY C. ARTRIP; A. J. GALLIHAR; DEWAYNE A. TURNER; STACY L. DAY; REANNE KEGLEY; CMC JACKSON; PAUL MOCERI, QMHP Senior; S. FLETCHER, MED/QMHP; LIEUTENANT C. STANLEY; SERGEANT ERIC ANTHONY MILLER; SERGEANT CLINTON DEEL; JOHN MESSER; ALL DUAL TREATMENT TEAM MEMBERS; J. W. COYLE; C. BISHOP; A. J. VAUGHAN; LIEUTENANT STEVEN B. FRANKLIN; LIEUTENANT JAMES LYALL; LARRY W. JARVIS; JOHN MCQUEEN; SGT. C. DIXON; UNIT MANAGER TORI M. RAIFORD; MISSY L. COUNTS; CAPT. D. STILL; RENA I. MULLINS; A. MURPHY; B. AKERS; D. WILLIAMS; LARRY I. MULLINS; N.H. COOKIE SCOTT; BRIAN KEITH DAWKINS; HELEN SCOTT RICHESON; ADINA POGUE, Chief Operational Officer Regional; MARK E. ENGELKE; GERALDINE G. BAKER; LIEUTENANT JUSTIN KISER; GEORGE HINKLE, Defendants - Appellees.
Abdul-Hamza Wali Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Laura Haeberle Cahill, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
UNPUBLISHED Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Joel Christopher Hoppe, Magistrate Judge. (7:14-cv-00529-GEC-JCH) Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Abdul-Hamza Wali Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Laura Haeberle Cahill, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Abdul-Hamza Wali Muhammad seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's recommendation that Appellees' motions to dismiss or for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part and that Muhammad's motions be denied. 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 Muhammad 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