Nekita White v. Dunn ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6644
NEKITA ANTONIO WHITE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DUNN, Correctional Officer; TWINE, Correctional Officer;
ROBERTS, Correctional Officer; CARLENS, Correctional
Officer; MCQUEEN, Correctional Officer; MOJET, Correctional
Officer; JACKSON, Correctional Officer; MASKELUNY,
Correctional Officer; PARHAM, Correctional Officer; WHALENS,
Correctional Officer; PIEARCE, Correctional Officer;
RAWLINGS, Correctional Officer; EZELL, Correctional Officer;
MOFFET, Correctional Officer,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:10-cv-00349-TSE-IDD)
Submitted: July 28, 2011 Decided: August 2, 2011
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nekita Antonio White, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nekita Antonio White seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983(2006) complaint for failure to follow the court’s earlier order
requiring him to particularize and amend his complaint. This
court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28
U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral
orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.
Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949).
Because White’s complaint lacked specificity and he failed to
remedy this fact by filing an amended complaint that articulated
adequate facts, we conclude that the order White seeks to appeal
is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
collateral order. Generally a district court’s dismissal
without prejudice is not appealable. See Domino Sugar Corp. v.
Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066 (4th Cir.
1993) (holding that a plaintiff may not appeal the dismissal of
his complaint without prejudice unless the grounds for dismissal
clearly indicate that no amendment in the complaint could cure
the defects in the plaintiff’s case). Accordingly, we dismiss
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3