# Powhatan County School Board v. Kandise Lucas

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · December 30, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11234149

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** December 30, 2025
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11234149

## Opinion text

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1883 Doc: 15 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1883

POWHATAN COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KANDISE LUCAS,

Defendant - Appellant,

and

TODD SKINGER,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:24-cv-00874-REP)

Submitted: December 23, 2025 Decided: December 30, 2025

Before WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kandise Lucas, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew David Green, Laura Elizabeth Maughan,
SANDS ANDERSON, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 25-1883 Doc: 15 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Kandise Lucas seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying her motion

requesting district court hearing transcripts at government expense and denying several

other motions in the ongoing proceedings based on Appellee’s complaint against Lucas.

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 orders Lucas seeks to

appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.

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

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11234149. Public record. Not legal advice.