Bernard Staten v. Anthony Batt

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00599-CCB. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999723082]. Mailed to: Appellant. [15-7417]

Appeal: 15-7417

Doc: 14

Filed: 12/22/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7417

BERNARD L. STATEN,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
ANTHONY W. BATTS, Baltimore City Police Commissioner;
CORPORAL MCEVOY, Badge No. 2784; DETECTIVE MICHAEL, Badge
No. 2873; DETECTIVE COLLINS, Badge No. 3254; DETECTIVE
NACKE, Badge No. 3322; DETECTIVE LEE, Badge No. 3913;
DETECTIVE MCCOLLEN, Badge No. 4066,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, Chief District
Judge. (1:15-cv-00599-CCB)

Submitted:

December 17, 2015

Decided:

December 22, 2015

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bernard L. Staten, Appellant Pro Se. Kristen Elissa Hitchner,
BALTIMORE
CITY
LAW
DEPARTMENT,
Baltimore,
Maryland,
for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7417

Doc: 14

Filed: 12/22/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Bernard

L.

Staten

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s

order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)
civil rights action.
over

final

orders,

This court may exercise jurisdiction only
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 amended complaint, we conclude that the order Staten seeks
to

appeal

is

neither

a

final

interlocutory or collateral order.

order

nor

an

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