Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07667/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07667-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7667

JAMES LESTER ROUDABUSH, JR., 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

LT. JOSIAH; SGT. JESSUP; CHIEF STERN; DEPUTY STERN; CAPT. 

MILANO; DANA LAWHORNE, Sherriff, 

Defendants – Appellees, 

and 

A. ANDERSON, AUSA; C. M. HILTON, Usdc-Edva, 

Defendants. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief 

District Judge. (2:13-cv-00467-RBS-TEM) 

Submitted: January 5, 2015 Decided: January 16, 2015

Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

James Lester Roudabush, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Broderick 

Coleman Dunn, Alexander Francuzenko, COOK CRAIG & FRANCUZENKO, 

PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees. 

Appeal: 14-7667 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/16/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 14-7667 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/16/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM: 

James Lester Roudabush, Jr. — a federal pretrial 

detainee — seeks to appeal the district court’s September 19, 

2014 order granting his motion to reopen and vacating its prior 

order of dismissal, denying his motion to recuse, denying his 

motion relating to the withdrawal of funds from his inmate 

account, denying his motions to expedite, dismissing two 

defendants, and requesting that the remaining defendants return 

waivers of service. 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, 545-47 (1949). The order Roudabush 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

Appeal: 14-7667 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/16/2015 Pg: 3 of 3