Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07998/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07998-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 09-7998

JAMES LOUIS LEE, JR., 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

PATRICK GURNEY, Assistant Warden, Nottoway Correctional 

Center, in Official and Individual Capacity; FRED SCHILLING, 

M.D., Director, in Official and Individual Capacity; HARVARD 

STEPHENS, M.D., Chief Physician, in Official and Individual 

Capacity, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior 

District Judge. (3:08-cv-00161-RLW) 

Submitted: January 14, 2010 Decided: January 22, 2010 

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

James Louis Lee, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, 

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 09-7998 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/22/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 James Lee, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s 

grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants Patrick Gurney, 

Fred Schilling, and Harvard Stephens. 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). Because proceedings 

are ongoing as to one defendant in the district court, and the 

district court did not direct entry of judgment as to the other 

parties pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), the order Lee seeks 

to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable 

interlocutory or collateral order. See Robinson v. Parke-Davis 

& Co., 685 F.2d 912, 913 (4th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, we deny 

Lee’s motion to appoint counsel, 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 the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-7998 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/22/2010 Pg: 2 of 2