Awan Hardy v. Booker , 677 F. App'x 136 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 16-7571
    AWAN HARDY,
    Plaintiff – Appellant,
    v.
    BOOKER, Officer, City of Fredericksburg; TONEY, Officer,
    City of Farmville; ARIES, Officer, City of Farmville,
    Defendants – Appellees,
    and
    PIEDMONT REGIONAL JAIL; MEDIKO PC, Piedmont Regional Jail;
    DONALD HUNTER, City of Farmville,
    Defendants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Henry E. Hudson, District
    Judge. (3:15-cv-00484-HEH-RCY)
    Submitted:    February 16, 2017            Decided:   February 22, 2017
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge,         DUNCAN,     Circuit   Judge,   and
    HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Awan Hardy, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Awan    Hardy       seeks     to   appeal     the    district     court’s   order
    dismissing       his    
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
        (2012)      complaint     without
    prejudice for failure to serve the defendants.                        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 Hardy
    may refile his complaint and serve defendants, we conclude that
    the order Hardy 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 deny leave to
    proceed in forma pauperis and 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
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-7571

Citation Numbers: 677 F. App'x 136

Judges: Duncan, Gregory, Hamilton, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 2/22/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024