Ronald McClary v. Belquis Hopkins , 670 F. App'x 829 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 16-7063
    RONALD MCCLARY,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    BELQUIS HOPKINS, Lead Nurse; DAVID MITCHELL; ANTHONY SEARLES,
    Defendants – Appellees,
    and
    EAVES, Nurse,
    Defendant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief
    District Judge. (3:16-cv-00088-FDW)
    Submitted:   November 17, 2016               Decided:   November 22, 2016
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Ronald McClary, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Ronald McClary seeks to appeal the district court's order and
    judgment dismissing without prejudice 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 filing an amended complaint, we conclude that the order
    McClary seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable
    interlocutory or collateral order.          See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal
    Aid Soc’y, Inc., 
    807 F.3d 619
    , 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015); Domino Sugar
    Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 
    10 F.3d 1064
    , 1066-67 (4th
    Cir. 1993).      Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of
    jurisdiction    and   remand   the   case   to   the    district   court   with
    instructions to allow McClary to amend his complaint.              Goode, 807
    F.3d at 630.    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 AND REMANDED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-7063

Citation Numbers: 670 F. App'x 829

Judges: Gregory, Motz, Per Curiam, Traxler

Filed Date: 11/22/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024