Parker v. Spanberger - Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction

4th Circuit Daily Opinions

Filed February 20th, 2026

Detected February 21st, 2026

Summary

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal filed by Ray Elbert Parker against state and federal officials. The court found it lacked jurisdiction because the order Parker sought to appeal was neither a final nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, and Parker consented to the dismissal of his claims.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed the appeal in Ray Parker v. Abigail Spanberger et al., citing a lack of jurisdiction. The court determined that the district court's order, which dismissed Parker's claims against state defendants based on Eleventh Amendment immunity and subsequently granted his motion to voluntarily dismiss claims against all defendants, was neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. The court also noted that Parker is not entitled to appeal a consensual dismissal.

This decision means the appeal is terminated, and no further action will be taken by the Fourth Circuit. For regulated entities, this serves as a reminder of the strict jurisdictional requirements for appeals and the implications of consensual dismissals. No specific compliance actions are required as this is a court decision concerning a specific litigant's appeal.

Source document (simplified)

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH C IRCUIT No. 25-1976 RAY ELBERT PARK ER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Gov ernor of the Commo nwealth of Virginia or h er successor; K RISTIN COLLINS, Tax Com missioner for the Commonweal th of Virginia; DANIEL PATRICK D RISCOLL, United State s Secretary of Army; KAREN DURHAM AGUILARA, Executive Director Arlington National Cemet ery; DOUGLAS ALLEN C OLLINS, Secretary of Veteran Affairs, Defendants - Appell ees. Appeal from the Unit ed States Distri ct Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Se nior District Judge. (1: 25- cv -00560-CMH- WE F) Submitted: January 13, 2026 Decided: February 20, 2026 Before NIEMEYER, G REGORY, and RI CHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublis hed per curiam opin ion. Ray Elbert Parker, App ellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding prec edent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM: Ray Elbert Parker see ks to appeal the district court’s order dis missing his claims against State Defendants Youngkin and Alex based on Eleventh Amendment im munity. Parker v. Youngkin, N o. 1:25 - cv -00560-CM H- WEF (E.D. Va. July 14, 2025). After the district court dismiss ed Parker’s claims against the State Defe ndants, the court granted his motion to voluntarily dismiss h is claims again st all Defendant s. This court m ay exercise jurisdiction only o ver 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. B eneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545 - 46 (1949). The ord er Parker seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collate ral order. Moreover, Parker is “not entitled to appea l from a con sensual dismissa l of [his] claim s.” See Keena v. Groupon, Inc., 886 F.3d 360, 365 (4th Cir. 2018). Accordingly, w e deny Parker’s pending motions to reman d, for acceptance of re sponse, and to revers e and remand to add ne w parties, and we dismiss the appeal for lack of j urisdiction. We dispen se with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are a dequately presented in the materials befor e this court and argu ment would not aid the decis ional process. DISMISSED