James J. Jardina v. Dept. of Public Safety

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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