Maurice Dunbar v. James Metts ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6716
MAURICE DUNBAR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
REGINALD C. MACK; LLOYD BENNETT; TERENCE HAYES; JEREMIAH
BARTLEY; RAYMOND FLORES; JOHNNY BURCH; SHERMAN A. DAVIS;
DAVID LEE CRADLE, JR.; ISAAC NELSON; JORGE MUNGUIA; JIMMIE
JACKSON, JR.; MIAMI SIMPSON; CHARLES PRYOR; JUSTIN L. JONES;
MICHAEL MCCOY; DAVID JOHNSON; ANTHONY RILEY; QUINCY HOLLEY;
MARLON CURRY; ADRIAN CORNELIUS; JAMES JOHNSON; ARMANDO
GOMEZ-JAIMEZ; MARLOS STEVENSON; VINCENT L. PINKARD; MARCELO
ARANDA RANGEL; FRANKLIN J. DOUGLAS; HENRY WISE; JOSE JAIRO
LOPEZ; KEITH BRANNON; JAMAL JOHNSON; JEFFERY L. JONES;
WESLEY CHANDLER; ANTOINE C. BAKER; WILLIAM L. NEWTON;
ANTONIO HARMON; TOBY HAMM; JAMES BROOKS; EDWIN TODD SANDERS;
MICHAEL TILLMAN; CURTIS JACKSON; JEROME CROSSLAND; VAUGHNTA
JONES; TAYON YOUNG; CLARENCE PADGETT; JOHNNY DICKERSON;
BRIAN WILLIAMSON; LUCIO CAVANYA MENDEZ; FELIPE DEJESUS
ALVARADO BALDERAS; RIAN LOPEZ; WILLIAM ERNEST BETHEL,
Plaintiffs,
versus
JAMES METTS, in charge of Lexington County Detention Center;
CITY COUNCIL, or Person Oursee of the Courts,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (2:10-cv-01775-HMH)
Submitted: October 18, 2011 Decided: October 21, 2011
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Maurice Dunbar, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Maurice Dunbar appeals the district court’s order
adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing
his complaint without prejudice. Because Dunbar may amend his
complaint to cure the defects identified by the district court,
the dismissal order is interlocutory and not appealable. See
Chao v. Rivendell Woods, Inc., 415 F.3d 342, 345 (4th Cir.
2005); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10
F.3d 1064, 1066–67 (4th Cir. 1993). 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