Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06431/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06431-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
H. Bishop
Appellee
C/O Boyd
Appellee
B. Collins
Appellee
J. Durham
Appellee
Sgt. Ely
Appellee
Patricia Hillman
Appellee
C/O Hylton
Appellee
Lt. Kilbourne
Appellee
Sgt. King
Appellee
C/O Roberts
Appellee
Melissa Spears
Appellee
M. Stanford
Appellee
C/O Tabor
Appellee
Ted Thompson
Appellee
M. Williams
Appellee
Fred Lewis Wilson
Appellant
Patsy Garnette Zeppa
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6431

FRED LEWIS WILSON,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

B. COLLINS, Sgt.; M. WILLIAMS, C/O; H. BISHOP, C/O; J. 

DURHAM, C/O; SGT. KING; LT. KILBOURNE; C/O HYLTON; C/O BOYD; 

C/O ROBERTS; C/O TABOR; SGT. ELY; TED THOMPSON, Dr.; M. 

STANFORD, RN; MELISSA SPEARS, LPN; PATSY GARNETTE ZEPPA, RN; 

PATRICIA HILLMAN, RN,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District 

Judge. (7:08-cv-00638-GEC-MFU)

Submitted: June 1, 2010 Decided: June 9, 2010

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fred Lewis Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, Jeff W. 

Rosen, PENDER & COWARD, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6431 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/09/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Fred Lewis Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order granting partial summary judgment for Defendants in this 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action. 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). The order Wilson seeks 

to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable 

interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny 

Wilson’s pending motions for discovery and to amend 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: 10-6431 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/09/2010 Pg: 2 of 2