Martin Rugamba v. Rockledge Bus (Tour), Inc.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-03948-GLR Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999871497]. Mailed to: Martin Rugamba. [16-1076]

Appeal: 16-1076

Doc: 6

Filed: 06/28/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1076

MARTIN RUGAMBA,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
ROCKLEDGE BUS (TOUR), INC.; ROCKLEDGE BUS (TOUR) INC.
SUPERVISOR; MTA POLICE OFFICER 1; MTA POLICE OFFICER 2; MTA
BUS DRIVER; MTA TRAIN OPERATOR; AMTRAK 3 UNKNOWN AGENTS;
7-ELEVEN, INC.; 7-ELEVEN, INC. 2 UNKNOWN EMPLOYEES; DOES
1-20,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge.
(1:15-cv-03948-GLR)

Submitted:

June 23, 2016

Decided:

June 28, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Martin Rugamba, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1076

Doc: 6

Filed: 06/28/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Martin Rugamba seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint.
may

exercise

jurisdiction

only

over

final

orders,

This court
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.

U.S.

54(b);

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 Rugamba 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 (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