Royal Pollard v. Mr. Reynold
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:16-cv-00034-RAJ-RJK Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999873239]. Mailed to: Royal Pollard. [16-6318]
Appeal: 16-6318
Doc: 10
Filed: 06/29/2016
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6318
ROYAL POLLARD,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
MR. REYNOLDS, Major/Supervisor; MR. SAPP, R.R.J. Officer; MR.
LARON DELOATCH, R.R.J. Officer; MS. SPRATLEY, R.R.J.
(Grievance Coordinator); MR. LANGLEY, R.R.J. (Captain); MR.
POWELL, R.R.J. (OPR Sergant/Coordinator); MR. BROWN (#142),
R.R.J. (security officer); MR. JEFFERY NEWTON, R.R.J.
(superintendent); OFFICER MARTINEZ,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:16-cv-00034-RAJ-RJK)
Submitted:
June 23, 2016
Decided:
June 29, 2016
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Royal Pollard, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-6318
Doc: 10
Filed: 06/29/2016
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Royal Pollard seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (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 Pollard 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, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?