Patrick Parker, Sr. v. Joseph Higgs, Jr.

Filing 920091217

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7160

PATRICK O. PARKER, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOSEPH A. HIGGS, JR., Superintendent; L. WALLACE, Ombudsman; R. WILSON, Mr., Deputy Superintendent; SIMPSON, Sgt., Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:06-cv-00663-REP)

Submitted:

December 15, 2009

Decided:

December 17, 2009

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patrick O. Parker, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Alexander Francuzenko, COOK, KITTS & FRANCUZENKO, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Patrick O. Parker, Sr., appeals a district court order dismissing interference his with civil his rights right to complaint worship. concerning Insofar as alleged Parker

appeals the order granting summary judgment to Simpson, we have reviewed the record and the district court's order and affirm for the reasons cited by the district court. See Parker v. Insofar

Higgs, No. 3:06-cv-00663-REP (E.D. Va. June 4, 2009). as Parker appeals prejudice from his the district court against order the

dismissing remaining

without

complaint

Defendants, a dismissal without prejudice is not reviewable by this court unless the reasons stated for the dismissal clearly disclose defects. that no amendment to the complaint could cure its

See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union Because Parker

392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).

could cure the defect in the complaint, we dismiss in part the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional

would

process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART

2