Kenneth Awe v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:11-cv-00511-RAJ-LRL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999385614]. Mailed to: Awe. [14-6531]

Appeal: 14-6531

Doc: 9

Filed: 06/30/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6531

KENNETH V. AWE,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE, Director of VDOC; V. M. WASHINGTON, Warden
GRCC; B. WRIGHT, Warden GRCC; WARDEN
BOONE, Warden of
GRCC; DR. TESEMMA, M.D. of GRCC; FRED SCHILLING, Health
Service Director,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:11-cv-00511-RAJ-LRL)

Submitted:

June 26, 2014

Decided:

June 30, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth V. Awe, Appellant Pro Se. James Milburn Isaacs, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6531

Doc: 9

Filed: 06/30/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Awe seeks to appeal the district court order
dismissing
Americans

without
with

prejudice

Disabilities

his
Act,

action
42

brought

U.S.C.

(2012), for failure to state a claim.

under

the

§§ 12132-12134

This court may exercise

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012),
and

certain

interlocutory

and

collateral

orders,

28

U.S.C.

§ 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.
Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949).

The order Awe seeks to

appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory
or collateral order, as Awe may be able to save his action by
amending his complaint to cure the pleading deficiencies that
were identified by the district court.

Domino Sugar Corp. v.

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

Accordingly,

jurisdiction.

we

dismiss

the

appeal

for

lack

of

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