Raheem Floyd v. Edward McMahon

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:15-ct-03309-FL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999949400]. Mailed to: Raheem Floyd. [16-6937]

Appeal: 16-6937

Doc: 10

Filed: 10/18/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6937

RAHEEM AKBAR SHABAZZ FLOYD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
EDWARD J. MCMAHON, Sheriff; M. J. MOSALL,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:15-ct-03309-FL)

Submitted:

October 13, 2016

Decided:

October 18, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raheem Akbar Shabazz Floyd, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6937

Doc: 10

Filed: 10/18/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Raheem Akbar Shabazz Floyd seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2012) complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012) for
failing to allege a constitutional violation.

This court may

exercise jurisdiction 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, 545-46 (1949).

The order Floyd seeks to

appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
collateral order.

See 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 and remand the case to
the district court with instructions to allow Floyd to file an
amended complaint.

See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc.,

807 F.3d 619, 623-24, 630 (4th Cir. 2015).

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 AND REMANDED

2