White v. Parham ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7414
NEKITA ANTONIO WHITE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ANTONIO PARHAM, WTRJ Officer; MR. MASKELONY, WTRJ Officer;
MR. LENYON, WTRJ Officer; MR. DUNN, WTRJ Officer; MR.
PERKER, WTRJ Officer; MR. EZELL, WTRJ Officer; MR. ROBERTS,
WTRJ Officer; JOHNSON, WTRJ Officer; MOFFET, WTRJ 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. (1:09-cv-00320-TSE-TCB)
Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 27, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local
Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we
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