UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6786
RASHID QAWI AL-AMIN,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
GENE JOHNSON, in his official capacity; LINDA SHEAR, in her
individual and official capacities; RUFUS FLEMING, in his
individual and official capacities; G. P. WILLIAMS, in his
individual and official capacities; S. J. ADVENT, in his
individual and official capacities; S. BAYLOR, in his
individual and official capacities; D. M. FERGUSON, in
his/her individual and official capacities; M. L. POPE, in
his individual and official capacities; MR. FERROW, in his
individual and official capacities; CHARLIE DAVIS, in his
individual and official capacities; BLAINE BROCK, Food
Service Manager, an employee of Compass Group USA, Inc.
d/b/a Canteen Correctional Services; CLYDE ALDERMAN, in his
individual and official capacities,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:04-cv-00346-RAJ)
Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: November 30, 2010
Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rashid Qawi Al-Amin, Appellant Pro Se. Mark R. Davis, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Paul Graham Beers, GLENN,
FELDMANN, DARBY & GOODLATTE, Roanoke, Virginia; Peter M.
Coppinger, Gregory D. Cote, MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP, Boston,
Massachusetts, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Rashid Qawi Al-Amin seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing one of the defendants as a party. 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 Al-Amin 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 the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3