George Yarid v. Layton Harman

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:12-cv-00237-JRS. Mailed to: George Yarid. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999096656]. [13-1048]--[Edited 04/29/2013 by BHR]

Appeal: 13-1048

Doc: 10

Filed: 04/29/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1048

GEORGE ALEXANDER YARID,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LAYTON HARMAN; ROBERT ROONEY; JOHN LUCAS; AL HORFORD; ED
DAVIS; BRODIE BRUCE; SCOTT HATRNELL; KURT DONALDSON; PAUL
WRIGHT; GORDAN FREEMAN; MIKE DANNER,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
John A. Gibney, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:12-cv-00237-JRS)

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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Alexander Yarid, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-1048

Doc: 10

Filed: 04/29/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
George

Alexander

Yarid

appeals

the

district

court’s

order dismissing his complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006).

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, 545–47 (1949).
Yarid’s

particularized

Because the district court found

complaint

too

vague

and

conclusory

to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted, but allowed him
to amplify the factual and legal bases on which his claims rest
and refile his complaint, we conclude that the district court’s
order is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory
or collateral order.

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