Freddie Riley v. Ed McMahon

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:14-ct-03243-D. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999681738]. Mailed to: Freddie Riley. [15-6934]

Appeal: 15-6934

Doc: 14

Filed: 10/20/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6934

FREDDIE LEE RILEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
JACQUES CHAVIS; RICK EDWARD TOSCANO; JOEL WOODS,
Movants,
v.
SHERIFF ED MCMAHON; DR. STUBBS; OFFICER CHAPPELL,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:14-ct-03243-D)

Submitted:

October 15, 2015

Decided:

October 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Freddie Lee Riley, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6934

Doc: 14

Filed: 10/20/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Freddie

Lee

Riley

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s

order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint.
With regard to Riley’s appeal of the district court’s dismissal
without prejudice of his claim of injury to his arm, 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.

Beneficial

§

1292

Indus.

(2012);
Loan

Fed.

Civ.

P.

337

Corp.,

R.

54(b);

U.S.

541,

Cohen

545–47

v.

(1949).

“Dismissals without prejudice are generally not appealable final
orders.”
2015).

In re GNC Corp., 789 F.3d 505, 511 n.3 (4th Cir.
Because the deficiencies in this claim identified by the

district

court

complaint,

we

interlocutory.

may

be

dismiss

remedied
this

by

the

portion

filing
of

of

the

an

amended

appeal

as

See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local

Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066–67 (4th Cir. 1993).
As to Riley’s remaining claims, we have reviewed the record
and

find

no

reversible

error.

Accordingly,

we

affirm

the

remainder of the district court’s order.

Riley v. McMahon, No.

5:14-ct-03243-D (E.D.N.C. June 1, 2015).

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 IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
2