Royal Pollard v. Dr. Wright (CCS)

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:16-cv-00025-RAJ-LRL. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999873586]. Mailed to: Royal Pollard. [16-6347]

Appeal: 16-6347

Doc: 14

Filed: 06/29/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6347

ROYAL L. POLLARD,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
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
Judge. (2:16-cv-00025-RAJ-LRL)

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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 16-6347

Doc: 14

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.
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 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,
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