Raymond Bethel, Jr. v. Department of State Police

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to amend/correct [999454819-2] in 14-7375, denying Motion to amend/correct [999454839-2] in 14-7377 Originating case number: 3:14-cv-00170-HEH-MHL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999479853]. Mailed to: Raymond Bethel, Jr.. [14-7375, 14-7377]

Appeal: 14-7375

Doc: 11

Filed: 11/21/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7375

RAYMOND V. BETHEL, JR.,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY,
Defendant - Appellee.

No. 14-7377

RAYMOND V. BETHEL, JR.,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:14-cv-00170-HEH-MHL; 3:14-cv-00183-HEH-MHL)

Submitted:

November 18, 2014

Decided:

November 21, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Appeal: 14-7375

Doc: 11

Filed: 11/21/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond V. Bethel, Jr,. Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-7375

Doc: 11

Filed: 11/21/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Raymond V. Bethel, Jr.,
seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing without
prejudice
(2012).

his

related

actions

filed

under

42

U.S.C.

§ 1983

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and
collateral

orders,

54(b); Cohen

v.

545-46 (1949).

28

U.S.C.

Beneficial

§ 1292

Indus.

(2012);

Loan

Fed.

Corp.,

R.

337

Civ.

U.S.

P.

541,

The orders Bethel seeks to appeal are neither

final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders,
as Bethel may be able to amend his respective complaints to cure
the pleading deficiency identified by the district court. *

See

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

to

jurisdiction.

amend

and

Accordingly, we deny Bethel’s

dismiss

the

appeals

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

*

Insofar as Bethel’s motions to amend, filed in this court,
seek to amend his § 1983 complaints, we note that such amendment
must be sought in the district court. We express no opinion as
to the effectiveness or propriety of his proposed amendments.

3