William El v. Greensboro Police Department ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-2054
WILLIAM EL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GREENSBORO POLICE DEPARTMENT, A Corporation; WAYNE SCOTT,
Chief of Police; STEVEN KORY FLOWERS, In His Individual and
Official Capacity; NANCY B. VAUGHN, Mayor of Greensboro, In
Her Official Capacity; GUILFORD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES, A Corporation; MICHELLE MACADLO, In Her Individual
and Official Capacity; HEATHER SKEENS, In Her Individual and
Official Capacity; RON ORGIAS, In His Individual and
Official Capacity; BILL BENCINI, Mayor of High Point, In His
Official Capacity; HIGH POINT POLICE DEPARTMENT, A
Corporation; MARTY SUMNER, Chief of Police, In His Own
Capacity,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
STEPHANIE REESE, In Her Individual and Official Capacity; C.
E. JENKINS, In Official and Individual Capacity,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:16-cv-00014-TDS-JEP)
Submitted: March 27, 2017 Decided: April 28, 2017
Before MOTZ, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William El, Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony Clark, Associate
General Counsel, Polly D. Sizemore, CITY OF GREENSBORO LEGAL
DEPARTMENT, Greensboro, North Carolina; Matthew Livingston
Mason, GUILFORD COUNTY SHERIFF’S ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
William El seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his complaint without prejudice as to seven
defendants and ordering a show of good cause for failure to
properly effect service on the other four 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, 545-46 (1949). The
order El seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 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
3