James J. Jardina v. Dept. of Public Safety


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [1000065619-2]; denying Motion for entry of default judgment [1000109447-2] Originating case number: 1:16-cv-01255-JKB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000142208]. Mailed to: Joseph Barry Chazen; James J. Jardina. [17-6413]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-6413 Doc: 26 Filed: 08/23/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6413 JAMES J. JARDINA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; RICHARD J. GRAHAM, JR., Warden (WCI); DENISE GELSINGER, Asst. Warden (WCI); B. ZILER, CO II; WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.; ROBUSTIANO BARRERA, Doctor (WCI); BEVERLY MCLAUGHLIN, C.R.N.P., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge. (1:16-cv-01255-JKB) Submitted: August 15, 2017 Decided: August 23, 2017 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. James J. Jardina, Appellant Pro Se. Ankush Nayar, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Joseph Barry Chazen, Gina Marie Smith, MEYERS, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, PA, Riverdale, Maryland, for Appellees. Appeal: 17-6413 Doc: 26 Filed: 08/23/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 17-6413 Doc: 26 Filed: 08/23/2017 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: James J. Jardina seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment to certain defendants on some claims in his civil complaint, dismissing some claims with prejudice, and dismissing the remaining claims without prejudice. 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 district court identified a deficiency that Jardina may remedy by filing an amended complaint, we conclude that the order Jardina 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). Accordingly, we deny Jardina’s motions for appointment of counsel and for entry of default judgment, dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Jardina to file an amended complaint. 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 3

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?