Dorarena Boyd v. Robert Murray

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:15-cv-00329-AWA-DEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999742467]. Mailed to: DORARENA BOYD. [15-1979]

Appeal: 15-1979

Doc: 5

Filed: 01/27/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1979

DORARENA BOYD, et al.,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
ROBERT MURRAY; BEVERLY BROWN; CHARLOTTE MAULL; SHEPHERD
VILLAGE; FIRST BAPTIST BUTE STREET; REGIONAL LICENSE;
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; GLENDA AMES, Regional
Office; SUE MYATT; DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT,
Division
of
Building
Safety;
HEALTH
DEPARTMENT; VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION; MICHAEL EUGENE
PLUMMER; MIRCLE TABERNACLE FAMILY CENTER; TASTE N SEE;
CONFERENCE CENTER,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Arenda L. Wright Allen,
District Judge. (2:15-cv-00329-AWA-DEM)

Submitted:

January 21, 2016

Decided:

January 27, 2016

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dorarena Boyd, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1979

Doc: 5

Filed: 01/27/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Dorarena Boyd seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing her civil action without prejudice.

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 the

deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by
the filing of an amended complaint, we conclude that the order
Boyd seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order.
Aid

Soc’y,

Inc.,

807

F.3d

See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal

619,

623

(4th

Cir.

2015).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2