William Thomas, Jr. v. City of Staunton, Virginia

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:10-cv-00553-GEC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998808273]. Mailed to: Thomas. [11-2095]

Appeal: 11-2095

Document: 12

Date Filed: 03/13/2012

Page: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-2095

WILLIAM W. THOMAS, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF STAUNTON, VIRGINIA; JOHN DOE #1; JOHN DOE #2; JOHN
DOE #3; JOHN DOE #4; JOHN DOE #5; JOHN DOE #6,
Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (7:10-cv-00553-GEC)

Submitted:

February 24, 2012

Decided:

March 13, 2012

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William W. Thomas, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
John Charles Wirth,
NELSON MCPHERSON SUMMERS & SANTOS, Staunton, Virginia, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-2095

Document: 12

Date Filed: 03/13/2012

Page: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
William W. Thomas, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order granting the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss and dismissing the complaint without prejudice.
court

may

exercise

jurisdiction

only

over

final

This

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
Because
court

Indus.

Thomas
by

Loan

may

amending

Corp.,

proceed
his

337

with

complaint

U.S.

this
to

541,

action
provide

545-46
in

the

(1949).
district

specific

facts

showing his entitlement to the relief he seeks, see Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8(a), the order he 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,
1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).
lack of jurisdiction.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for
We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED

2