Albert Lacy v. George Castelle

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:13-cv-18215. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999948230].. [16-1701]

Appeal: 16-1701

Doc: 7

Filed: 10/17/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1701

ALBERT WILLIAM LACY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GEORGE CASTELLE, Kanawha Co. Chief Public Defender; BARBARA
A. BROWN, Deputy Public Defender; JUSTIN COLLIN, Lawyer Public
Defender; UNKNOWN PUBLIC DEFENDER,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
Thomas E. Johnston,
District Judge. (2:13-cv-18215)

Submitted:

October 13, 2016

Decided:

October 17, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Albert William Lacy, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1701

Doc: 7

Filed: 10/17/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Albert William Lacy seeks to appeal the district court’s order
adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing
without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 (2012) complaint.
This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final 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 amended complaint, we conclude that the order
Lacy seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order.

See 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).
jurisdiction.

Accordingly, we dismiss this 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