Robert A. Williamson v. Medical Department

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:15-cv-00371-MSD-DEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999762952]. Mailed to: Robert A. Williamson HAYNESVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER P. O. Box 129 Haynesville, VA 22472-0000. [15-7881]

Appeal: 15-7881

Doc: 9

Filed: 02/26/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7881

ROBERT A. WILLIAMSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, Medical,
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-00371-MSD-DEM)

Submitted:

February 23, 2016

Decided:

February 26, 2016

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert A. Williamson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7881

Doc: 9

Filed: 02/26/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Robert A. Williamson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his civil action without prejudice.

This court

may

28

exercise

jurisdiction

only

over

final

orders,

U.S.C.

§ 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders.
28

U.S.C.

§ 1292

(2012);

Beneficial

Indus.

Loan

Fed.

Civ.

P.

337

Corp.,

R.

54(b);

U.S.

541,

Cohen

545-47

v.

(1949).

Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be
remedied by the filing of an amended complaint, we conclude that
the order Williamson seeks to appeal is neither a final order
nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

Goode v.

Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir.
2015); 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