Ricky Hankins v. Jimmy Ayers
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
RICKY LEE HANKINS, Plaintiff Appellant, v. JIMMY AYERS, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (6:09-cv-00014-nkm)
June 3, 2009
June 10, 2009
Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ricky Lee Hankins, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Ricky Lee Hankins seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). 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 the
deficiency identified by the district court that the complaint did not assert sufficient facts in support of its legal
conclusions may be remedied by the filing of a complaint that articulates adequate facts, we conclude that the order Hankins 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) (a dismissal without prejudice is not generally
appealable). Accordingly, jurisdiction. counsel. legal We we dismiss Hankins' the motion appeal for for lack of of
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and are adequately presented in the materials
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?