Docanto v. Piedmont Regional ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-6910
FELISBERTO R. DOCANTO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
MICHAEL A. R. SEALE; TREVOR DORSETT; PATRICK
PILGRIM; JOSEPH BURNS; DAVID BOOTH,
Plaintiffs,
versus
PIEDMONT REGIONAL JAIL; LEWIS BARLOW, John Doe
#1, Superintendent; W. MARSHALL, John Doe #2,
Captain; LIEUTENANT HUNTER, John Doe #3; LIEU-
TENANT SCOTT, John Doe #4; LIEUTENANT FORE,
John Doe #5,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CA-99-417-AM)
Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 27, 1999
Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Felisberto R. Docanto, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Felisberto R. Docanto seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing without prejudice a pro se class action alleging
violations of constitutional rights based upon conditions at the
Piedmont Regional Jail. The district court dismissed the complaint
without prejudice on the grounds that the six pro se plaintiffs
were unable to fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
class. See Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir.
1975). The court further determined that it would not be proper
for the plaintiffs to proceed as co-plaintiffs because it appeared
that some of them had exhausted their administrative remedies,
while others had not.
Because a dismissal without prejudice is not generally appeal-
able, we dismiss the appeal. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar
Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).
The appellant may refile an individual claim. We note that the ap-
plicable statute of limitations will continue to run. 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