Gordon Staton v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999520173-2] Originating case number: 7:14-cv-00622-GEC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999547138]. Mailed to: Gordon Staton. [15-6011]

Appeal: 15-6011

Doc: 13

Filed: 03/17/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6011

GORDON SCOTT STATON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; UVA POLICE DEPARTMENT; DISTRICT 9
PROBATION AND PAROLE; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (7:14-cv-00622-GEC)

Submitted:

March 12, 2015

Decided:

March 17, 2015

Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gordon Scott Staton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6011

Doc: 13

Filed: 03/17/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Gordon

Scott

Staton

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action without prejudice *
under
record

28

U.S.C.

and

find

§ 1915A(b)(2)
no

(2012).

reversible

error.

We

have

reviewed

Accordingly,

we

the
deny

Staton’s motion to appoint counsel and affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court.

Staton v. Virginia, No. 7:14-cv-

00622-GEC

2014).

(W.D.

Va.

Nov.

26,

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.

AFFIRMED

*

Although it is well established that orders dismissing
complaints without prejudice are ordinarily interlocutory and
not appealable, see Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local
Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993), orders
dismissing actions without prejudice are generally final and
appealable.
See Chao v. Rivendell Woods, Inc., 415 F.3d 342,
345 (4th Cir. 2005).

2