James Goodson, Sr. v. Harold Clark

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:12-cv-00415-SGW-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999096717].. [12-8154]

Appeal: 12-8154

Doc: 8

Filed: 04/29/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-8154

JAMES DALLAS GOODSON, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARK; LOUIS B. CEI; D. A. BRAXTON; MR. YOUNCE,
D.O.C.,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (7:12-cv-00415-SGW-RSB)

Submitted:

April 25, 2013

Before AGEE and
Circuit Judge.

WYNN,

Circuit

Decided: April 29, 2013

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Dallas Goodson, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Richard Carson
Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-8154

Doc: 8

Filed: 04/29/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
James
district
U.S.C.

court’s
§ 1983

(2006).

Dallas

Goodson,

order

(2006)

Sr.,

dismissing
complaint

seeks

without

under

to

appeal

prejudice

28

U.S.C.

the

his

42

§ 1915A(b)

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 Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545–
46 (1949).

The order Goodson seeks to appeal is neither a final

order

an

nor

appealable

interlocutory

or

collateral

order

because it is possible for him to cure the pleading deficiencies
in

the

complaint

court.

that

were

identified

by

the

district

See 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
before

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

DISMISSED

2