Ronald McClary v. Belquis Hopkin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:16-cv-00088-FDW. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999973129]. Mailed to: Ronald McClary. [16-7063]

Appeal: 16-7063

Doc: 15

Filed: 11/22/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7063

RONALD MCCLARY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BELQUIS HOPKINS, Lead Nurse; DAVID MITCHELL; ANTHONY SEARLES,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
EAVES, Nurse,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief
District Judge. (3:16-cv-00088-FDW)

Submitted:

November 17, 2016

Decided:

November 22, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald McClary, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7063

Doc: 15

Filed: 11/22/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Ronald McClary seeks to appeal the district court's order and
judgment dismissing without prejudice 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 filing an amended complaint, we conclude that the order
McClary 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
and

remand

the

case

to

the

district

instructions to allow McClary to amend his complaint.
F.3d at 630.

court

with

Goode, 807

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