Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01841/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01841-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1841

ALBERT WILLIAM LACY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JOE DELONG, Director, West Virginia Regional Jail Authority; 

STEVE CROOKS, Administrator, South Central Regional Jail; MR. 

WILSON, Medical Administrator, Prime Care Medical, Inc.; MR. 

HUNTER, Correctional Officer, South Central Regional Jail; 

UNKNOWN MEDICAL STAFF, Placed me in an unclean cell in the 

hospital removing the person that had staff infection; MEDICAL 

STAFF PERSON TERRY, Female, Prime Care Medical, Inc.; MEDICAL 

STAFF PERSON EVA, Female, Prime Care Medical, Inc.; UNKNOWN 

CORPORAL AND MEDICAL STAFF, Prime Care Medical, Inc.; UNKNOWN 

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, Female; SEVERAL UNKNOWN CORRECTIONAL,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Thomas E. Johnston, 

District Judge. (2:13-cv-14813)

Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 21, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Albert William Lacy, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1841 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/21/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Albert William Lacy seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

dismissing some, but not all, of his claims raised under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 (2012). 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 Lacy 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: 16-1841 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/21/2016 Pg: 2 of 2