Nekita White v. Antonio Parham
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
NEKITA ANTONIO WHITE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ANTONIO PARHAM, WTRJ Officer; MR. MASKELONY, WTRJ Officer; MR. LENYON, WTRJ Officer; MR. DUNN, WTRJ Officer; MR. PERKER, WTRJ Officer; MR. EZELL, WTRJ Officer; MR. ROBERTS, WTRJ Officer; JOHNSON, WTRJ Officer; MOFFET, WTRJ Officer, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:09-cv-00320-TSE-TCB)
January 19, 2010
January 27, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nekita Antonio White, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Nekita Antonio White seeks to appeal the district
court's order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint for failure to follow the court's earlier order requiring him to particularize and amend his complaint. court may exercise jurisdiction only over final This 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 White's complaint lacked specificity and he failed to remedy this fact by filing an amended complaint that articulated adequate facts, we conclude that the order White seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Accordingly, we We dispense with contentions the court are and
Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066 (4th Cir. 1993). dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. oral argument because in the the facts and legal before
argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
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?