Adrian Robinson v. Unknown

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cv-00225-TSE-TRJ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999116328]. Mailed to: Adrian Robinson. [12-7585]

Appeal: 12-7585

Doc: 21

Filed: 05/28/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7585

ADRIAN ROBINSON,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
UNKNOWN,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
T.S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:12-cv-00225-TSE-TRJ)

Submitted:

May 23, 2013

Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.

AGEE,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

May 28, 2013

HAMILTON,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Adrian Robinson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-7585

Doc: 21

Filed: 05/28/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Adrian Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint without
prejudice for failure to comply with a court order directing him
to

file

a

particularized

amended

complaint.

This

court

may

exercise jurisdiction only over final 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
Indus.

Loan

Robinson

Corp.,

seeks

to

337

U.S.

appeal

is

541,

545-46

neither

a

(1949).
final

appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

The

order

order

nor

an

Because Robinson

can remedy the deficiencies identified by the district court by
filing

an

amended

complaint

on

a

§ 1983

complaint

form,

we

conclude that the district court’s order is neither final nor
otherwise appealable.

Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local

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

Accordingly,

we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2