Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07662/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07662-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 15-7662

JAMES LESTER ROUDABUSH, JR., 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

LIEUTENANT JOSIAH; SERGEANT JESSUP; CHIEF STERN; DEPUTY 

STERN; CAPTAIN MILANO; DANA LAWHORNE, Sheriff; A. ANDERSON, 

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

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-00467-RBS-TEM) 

Submitted: January 14, 2016 Decided: January 20, 2016

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 15-7662 Doc: 15 Filed: 01/20/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM: 

James Lester Roudabush, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing his civil action without prejudice. 

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). Because the deficiencies identified by the 

district court may be remedied by the filing of an amended 

complaint, we conclude that the order Roudabush seeks to appeal 

is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or 

collateral order. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 

___ F.3d ___, No. 14-1939, 2015 WL 8289046, at *3-*4 (4th Cir. 

Dec. 9, 2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 

392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). 

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: 15-7662 Doc: 15 Filed: 01/20/2016 Pg: 2 of 2