Owens v. Steiger , 292 F. App'x 227 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6438
JAMES JOSEPH OWENS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ERICK STEIGER, Mr., Chief of Security; KIM ANTHONY, Ms., Case
Manager; MARY JO WILLIAMS, Regional Analyst; EDWARD G. PERRY,
Chairman,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:08-
cv-00121-JFM)
Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: September 2, 2008
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Joseph Owens, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Joseph Owens seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2000). To the extent that Owens seeks to state
a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) claim based on alleged civil rights
violations occurring in Maryland, 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 Owens seeks to appeal is
neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral
order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10
F.3d 1064, 1066 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss this
portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
To the extent that Owens seeks to state a § 1983 claim
based on alleged civil rights violations occurring in Ohio, or
seeks to raise a habeas corpus claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(2000), we have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is
frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for the reasons
stated by the district court. Owens v. Steiger, No. 1:08-cv-00121-
JFM (D. Md. filed Feb. 21, 2008; entered Feb. 25, 2008). We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
- 2 -
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -