Troy Burrell v. T. Do


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [1000060644-2]. Originating case number: 3:16-cv-00212-HEH-RCY. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000140521]. Mailed to: Appellant. [17-6384]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-6384 Doc: 16 Filed: 08/21/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6384 MR. TROY LAMONT BURRELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MR. T. DOSS, the Superintendent; MR. PROCTOR, Major; MR. WILLIAMS, Correctional Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:16-cv-00212-HEH-RCY) Submitted: August 17, 2017 Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Troy Lamont Burrell, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Decided: August 21, 2017 Appeal: 17-6384 Doc: 16 Filed: 08/21/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Troy Lamont Burrell seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action for failure to adequately comply with the magistrate judge’s order directing Burrell to particularize the complaint and denying Burrell’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. 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 orders Burrell seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. 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, 106667 (4th Cir. 1993); see also Bridges v. Dep’t of Md. State Police, 441 F.3d 197, 207 (4th Cir. 2006) (“The denial of reconsideration of a nonappealable order is not a final order”). Accordingly, we deny Burrell leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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 * We do not remand this matter to the district court, because the court previously afforded Burrell the opportunity to amend his complaint. Cf. Goode, 807 F.3d at 629-30. 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?