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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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