Maurice Dunbar v. James Mett
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:10-cv-01775-HMH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998706247]. Mailed to: Maurice Dunbar. [11-6716]
Appeal: 11-6716
Document: 9
Date Filed: 10/21/2011
Page: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6716
MAURICE DUNBAR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
REGINALD C. MACK; LLOYD BENNETT; TERENCE HAYES; JEREMIAH
BARTLEY; RAYMOND FLORES; JOHNNY BURCH; SHERMAN A. DAVIS;
DAVID LEE CRADLE, JR.; ISAAC NELSON; JORGE MUNGUIA; JIMMIE
JACKSON, JR.; MIAMI SIMPSON; CHARLES PRYOR; JUSTIN L. JONES;
MICHAEL MCCOY; DAVID JOHNSON; ANTHONY RILEY; QUINCY HOLLEY;
MARLON CURRY; ADRIAN CORNELIUS; JAMES JOHNSON; ARMANDO
GOMEZ-JAIMEZ; MARLOS STEVENSON; VINCENT L. PINKARD; MARCELO
ARANDA RANGEL; FRANKLIN J. DOUGLAS; HENRY WISE; JOSE JAIRO
LOPEZ; KEITH BRANNON; JAMAL JOHNSON; JEFFERY L. JONES;
WESLEY CHANDLER; ANTOINE C. BAKER; WILLIAM L. NEWTON;
ANTONIO HARMON; TOBY HAMM; JAMES BROOKS; EDWIN TODD SANDERS;
MICHAEL TILLMAN; CURTIS JACKSON; JEROME CROSSLAND; VAUGHNTA
JONES; TAYON YOUNG; CLARENCE PADGETT; JOHNNY DICKERSON;
BRIAN WILLIAMSON; LUCIO CAVANYA MENDEZ; FELIPE DEJESUS
ALVARADO BALDERAS; RIAN LOPEZ; WILLIAM ERNEST BETHEL,
Plaintiffs,
versus
JAMES METTS, in charge of Lexington County Detention Center;
CITY COUNCIL, or Person Oursee of the Courts,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (2:10-cv-01775-HMH)
Appeal: 11-6716
Document: 9
Submitted:
Date Filed: 10/21/2011
October 18, 2011
Page: 2 of 3
Decided:
October 21, 2011
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Maurice Dunbar, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Appeal: 11-6716
Document: 9
Date Filed: 10/21/2011
Page: 3 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Maurice
adopting
the
Dunbar
magistrate
appeals
judge’s
the
district
recommendation
his complaint without prejudice.
court’s
and
order
dismissing
Because Dunbar may amend his
complaint to cure the defects identified by the district court,
the dismissal order is interlocutory and not appealable.
Chao
v.
Rivendell
Woods,
Inc.,
415
F.3d
342,
345
(4th
See
Cir.
2005); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10
F.3d 1064, 1066–67 (4th Cir. 1993).
appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Accordingly, we dismiss the
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
3
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?