Ronald McGugan v. Harold Clarke, No. 21-7448 (4th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-7448 RONALD W. MCGUGAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HAROLD CLARKE; JOHN DOE #1, Warden of Pocahontas; KEVIN PUNTUR, Current Warden; R. WALZ, Assistant Warden, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JOHN DOE #2, Correctional Officer Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JOHN DOE #3, Correctional Officer Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JOHN DOE #4, Correctional Officer Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JOHN DOE #5, Correctional Officer Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JANE DOE #1, Nurse, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JANE DOE #2, Nurse or Nurse Assistant, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JANE DOE #3, Nurse or Nurse Assistant, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JANE DOE #4, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JOHN DOE #6, Yard Officer (correctional officer) Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JOHN DOE #7, Medical Building Correctional Officer, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; B. WILLIAMS; D. HAMMOND, Unit Manager, A-Building, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; D. LEE; DR. MULLINS, Nurse Practitioner, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; DR. SMITH, Doctor, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; H. E. JOHNSON, Institutional Investigator, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JOHN DOE #10, S.I.U. Investigator, Virginia Department of Corrections; JOHN DOE #11, Sergeant, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; M. MURPHY, Psychologist Senior, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JOHN DOE #12, Department of Corrections Ombudsman; S. YATES, Health Authority, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JOHN DOE #13, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; K. VANCE, Operations and PREA Compliance Manager, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; MS. SMALLING, Grievance Coordinator, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JANE DOE #5 (GROSS), Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JOHN DOE #14, Sergeant of A-Building, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JOHN DOE #15, Sergeant, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JOHN DOE #16, Lieutenant, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JOHN DOE #17, Lieutenant, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JOHN DOE #18, Captain, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JOHN DOE #19, Captain, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JOHN DOE #20, Major, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; V. SCOTT; JOHN DOE #22, Counselor of Building A, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; JOHN DOE #23, Correctional Officer, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; T. HEFFINGER, Institutional Safety Specialist, Pocahontas State Correctional Center; J. ARMES; J. GRUBB, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Thomas T. Cullen, District Judge. (7:20-cv-00303-TTC-RSB) Submitted: December 21, 2021 Decided: December 27, 2021 Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald W. McGugan, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Jones Blain, HARMAN CLAYTOR CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Ronald W. McGugan seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing some, but not all, of the claims raised in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order McGugan 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 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.