Royal Pollard v. Dr. Wright (CCS)
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:16-cv-00025-RAJ-LRL. Copies to all parties and the district court. . Mailed to: Royal Pollard. [16-6347]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
ROYAL L. POLLARD,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
DR. WRIGHT (CCS), Doctor; MS. CLANTON, Nurse / CCS; MS.
REEDES, Nurse / CCS; MS. HUTCHENS, Nurse / CCS; MS. EVANS,
Nurse / CCS; MS. FERGUSON (CCS), H8A Staff; MS. MCGLAUIGHN
(CCS), Nurse; DR. NAVEED (CCS),
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
June 23, 2016
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
Royal Pollard seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint.
§ 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders,
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).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
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?