Vaughan v. Corr Officer Bledsoe ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6593
RONNIE VAUGHAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BLEDSOE; SERGEANT
COLEMAN; GRIEVANCE COORDINATOR BEDWELL;
LIEUTENANT CASSEL, Correctional Lieutenant,
Powhatan, Investigator Lieutenant; LIEUTENANT
ROGERS; SERGEANT BROWN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District
Judge. (CA-02-1756-AM)
Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: October 10, 2003
Before LUTTIG and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.*
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronnie Vaughan, Appellant Pro Se.
*
The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 46(d) (2000).
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ronnie Vaughan, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district
court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983(2000) complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction
because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise
jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and
certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan
Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order appealed from is neither a
final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order
because Vaughan may proceed by simply amending his complaint to
provide proof that he has exhausted his administrative remedies.
See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d
1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, we deny Vaughan’s motion for appointment of
counsel and 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
2