Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07655/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07655-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7655

JAMES LESTER ROUDABUSH, JR., 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

THEODORE C. NELSON, SA, U.S. Department of State; JASON 

CALLAHAN, Detective, Prince William County Police 

Department; STEPHAN HUDSON, Chief, Prince William Police 

Department; REBECCA THATCHER, Assistant Commonwealth 

Attorney; JOHN/JANE DOE, Prince William County Police 

Department, Evidence Sect. Director; CHRIS FELDMAN, 

Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

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

District Judge. (2:13-cv-00641-RBS-DEM) 

Submitted: January 6, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 14-7655 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/16/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM: 

James Lester Roudabush, Jr., seeks to appeal the 

district court’s October 3, 2014 order denying his motions to 

recuse and relative to his inmate trust account, dismissing 

three defendants, denying his motion to expedite, 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: 14-7655 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/16/2015 Pg: 2 of 2