Robert E. Sampson v. Highland County VA

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:15-cv-00465-GEC-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999852911]. Mailed to: Robert E. Sampson 4148 Bullpasture River Road McDowell, VA 24458. [15-7614]

Appeal: 15-7614

Doc: 8

Filed: 06/14/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7614

ROBERT E. SAMPSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HIGHLAND COUNTY VA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; MAYOR,
Monterey; T.J. DUFF, Highland County Sheriff,

City

of

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (7:15-cv-00465-GEC-RSB)

Submitted:

February 18, 2016

Decided:

June 14, 2016

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert E. Sampson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7614

Doc: 8

Filed: 06/14/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Robert

E.

Sampson

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s

order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)
complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)
(2012).

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final

orders,

28

U.S.C.

§ 1291

(2012),

and

certain

interlocutory

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).

The

order Sampson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

See Domino Sugar

Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67
(4th Cir. 1993).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction

remand

and

the

case

to

the

district

court

with

instructions to allow Sampson to file an amended complaint.

See

Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, 807 F.3d 619, 630 (4th Cir.
2015).
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
DISMISSED AND REMANDED

2