Joseph Lagana v. Bobby Shearin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:14-cv-00970-PJM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999407970]. Mailed to: Lagana. [14-6670]

Appeal: 14-6670

Doc: 15

Filed: 08/01/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6670

JOSEPH LAGANA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BOBBY SHEARIN, Warden; DR. COLLIN OHEY; DR. AVA JOUBEIT; PA
GREG FLUIY; JANICE GILLMORE; ESTATE BARBARA NEWLON; RN BILL
BEEMON; RN MONICA METHERY; RN KRISSY CORTEZ; RN CARLA BUCK;
RN DAWN HAWK; LPN KELLY; LPN VICKIE; LPN MICHELLE; LT WILT;
SGT ZAIG; LT M. YACENECH; CHRISTINE B.; JANETTE SIMMONS;
CHAPLAIN LAMP; FRANK BISHOP, Warden; PA LUM; RN MARTIN; J.
MICHAEL STOUFFER, Commission; SCOTT OAKLEY; SHARON BAUCOM;
DR. GETACHEW; PATRICIA DOVE; RHONDA SKIDMORE; LPN JANE; PA
GREG FLURY; LPN KIM; DR. ODIFIE; CORIZON, INC.; WEXFORD
HEALTH; CMS,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:14-cv-00970-PJM)

Submitted:

July 29, 2014

Decided:

August 1, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Lagana, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6670

Doc: 15

Filed: 08/01/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Joseph
dismissing
complaint

Lagana

without
for

prejudice

failure

Procedure 8(a)(2). ∗

appeals

to

the

his

comply

district

42
with

U.S.C.
Federal

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2012).

court’s
§

1983

Rule

of

order
(2012)
Civil

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).

Because Lagana

may proceed with his timely claims by amending his complaint to
provide a “short and plain” statement of the facts showing his
entitlement to relief, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the order he
seeks to appeal is neither a final order with respect to those
claims

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,
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

∗

Lagana does not contest on appeal the district court’s
dismissal with prejudice of his claims that were barred by the
statute of limitations.

2

Appeal: 14-6670

before

Doc: 15

this

court

Filed: 08/01/2014

and

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3