Benjamin K. Quarmon v. Jeffrey Dillman
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:15-cv-00210-MSD-TEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999705892]. Mailed to: Benjamin K. Quarmon RSW REGIONAL JAIL 6601 Winchester Road Front Royal, VA 22630. [15-7261]
Appeal: 15-7261
Doc: 17
Filed: 11/24/2015
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7261
BENJAMIN K. QUARMON,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
JEFFREY DILLMAN, Warden,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:15-cv-00210-MSD-TEM)
Submitted:
November 19, 2015
Decided:
November 24, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin K. Quarmon, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-7261
Doc: 17
Filed: 11/24/2015
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Benjamin K. Quarmon seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)
civil rights action.
over
final
This court may exercise jurisdiction only
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,
545-47
(1949).
Because
the
deficiencies
identified by the district court may be remedied by the filing
of
an
seeks
amended
to
complaint,
appeal
is
we
neither
conclude
a
final
interlocutory or collateral order.
that
the
order
order
nor
an
Quarmon
appealable
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
before
this
court
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional
process.
DISMISSED
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?