Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07668/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07668-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 14-7668

JAMES LESTER ROUDABUSH, JR., 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

MILANO, Captain; LT. M. JOSIAH; SGT. F. MENSAH; LT. REA; 

ANDERSON; D/S H. MONIR; D. HALL; C. M. HILTON; JANE DOE, 

Nurse; CHARLIE, Paramedic at ADC, 

Defendants - Appellees, 

and 

FOX, 

Defendant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

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

District Judge. (2:13-cv-00581-RBS-TEM) 

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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. Broderick 

Coleman Dunn, Alexander Francuzenko, COOK CRAIG & FRANCUZENKO, 

PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees. 

Appeal: 14-7668 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/16/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 14-7668 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/16/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM: 

James Lester Roudabush, Jr., seeks to appeal the 

district court’s September 22, 2014 order granting his motion 

for voluntary dismissal of one defendant, denying his motions to 

recuse and expedite, denying his motion relating to the 

withdrawal of funds from his inmate account, dismissing another

defendant, 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: 14-7668 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/16/2015 Pg: 3 of 3