Freddie Riley v. Ed McMahon ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 15-6934
    FREDDIE LEE RILEY,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    and
    JACQUES CHAVIS; RICK EDWARD TOSCANO; JOEL WOODS,
    Movants,
    v.
    SHERIFF ED MCMAHON; DR. STUBBS; OFFICER CHAPPELL,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,
    Chief District Judge. (5:14-ct-03243-D)
    Submitted:   October 15, 2015             Decided:   October 20, 2015
    Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
    opinion.
    Freddie Lee Riley, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Freddie      Lee    Riley     seeks    to    appeal      the     district      court’s
    order denying relief on his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     (2012) complaint.
    With regard to Riley’s appeal of the district court’s dismissal
    without prejudice of his claim of injury to his arm, this court
    may   exercise      jurisdiction        only      over    final      orders,     
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders.
    
    28 U.S.C. § 1292
          (2012);    Fed.      R.    Civ.    P.     54(b);    Cohen    v.
    Beneficial      Indus.        Loan   Corp.,       
    337 U.S. 541
    ,    545–47       (1949).
    “Dismissals without prejudice are generally not appealable final
    orders.”       In re GNC Corp., 
    789 F.3d 505
    , 511 n.3 (4th Cir.
    2015).     Because the deficiencies in this claim identified by the
    district      court     may    be    remedied      by    the    filing    of   an     amended
    complaint,         we     dismiss      this        portion      of      the    appeal      as
    interlocutory.            See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local
    Union 392, 
    10 F.3d 1064
    , 1066–67 (4th Cir. 1993).
    As to Riley’s remaining claims, we have reviewed the record
    and    find    no   reversible        error.         Accordingly,        we    affirm     the
    remainder of the district court’s order.                        Riley v. McMahon, No.
    5:14-ct-03243-D (E.D.N.C. June 1, 2015).                        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.
    AFFIRMED IN PART;
    DISMISSED IN PART
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-6934

Judges: Wilkinson, Agee, Harris

Filed Date: 10/20/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024