Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07929/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07929-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lt. Col. Burnett
Appellee
Nurse Ford
Appellee
Dr. Furman
Appellee
Deputy Harris
Appellee
Ibrahim Abdullah Jabbar
Appellant
Sergeant Jones
Appellee
Captain McRea
Appellee
Chaplain Pruitt
Appellee
Captain Robinson
Appellee
Major Robinson
Appellee
C. T. Woody
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7929

IBRAHIM ABDULLAH JABBAR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

C. T. WOODY, Sheriff; CAPTAIN ROBINSON, Medical Dept. Sup.; 

DR. FURMAN, Head Doctor, RCJ; DEPUTY HARRIS, Mailroom; NURSE 

FORD, Medical Dept. RCJ; SERGEANT JONES, Grievance 

Coordinator; LT. COL. BURNETT, Jail Operations; MAJOR 

ROBINSON, Medical Dept. Supervisor; CAPTAIN MCREA, Jail 

Operations RCJ; CHAPLAIN PRUITT, Under Sheriff, RCJ,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior

District Judge. (1:09-cv-00246-TSE-TCB)

Submitted: February 18, 2010 Decided: February 25, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ibrahim Abdullah Jabbar, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-7929 Doc: 16 Filed: 02/25/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Ibrahim Abdullah Jabbar seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint 

in part. 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 

(1949). The order Jabbar 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 

deny Jabbar’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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: 09-7929 Doc: 16 Filed: 02/25/2010 Pg: 2 of 2