Royal Pollard v. Mr. Reynolds , 653 F. App'x 221 ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6318
ROYAL POLLARD,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
MR. REYNOLDS, Major/Supervisor; MR. SAPP, R.R.J. Officer; MR.
LARON DELOATCH, R.R.J. Officer; MS. SPRATLEY, R.R.J.
(Grievance Coordinator); MR. LANGLEY, R.R.J. (Captain); MR.
POWELL, R.R.J. (OPR Sergant/Coordinator); MR. BROWN (#142),
R.R.J. (security officer); MR. JEFFERY NEWTON, R.R.J.
(superintendent); OFFICER MARTINEZ,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:16-cv-00034-RAJ-RJK)
Submitted: June 23, 2016 Decided: June 29, 2016
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Royal Pollard, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Royal Pollard seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. 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). Because the deficiencies
identified by the district court may be remedied by the filing of
an amended complaint, we conclude that the order Pollard seeks to
appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
collateral order. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807
F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers
Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (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 this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2