Anthony Wright v. NC General Assembly

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:16-ct-03096-FL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000105962]. Mailed to: Anthony Wright. [17-6576]

Appeal: 17-6576

Doc: 10

Filed: 06/23/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6576

ANTHONY WRIGHT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY; GOVERNOR OF NORTH
CAROLINA,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:16-ct-03096-FL)

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Wright, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Decided: June 23, 2017

Appeal: 17-6576

Doc: 10

Filed: 06/23/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Anthony Wright seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without
prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012).
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). Here, the
district court concluded that Wright failed to state a claim, in part, because he had not
alleged facts to support his conclusory assertion that the alleged denial of access to the
courts impeded litigation in certain prior proceedings. Because this deficiency may be
remedied by the filing of an amended complaint, we conclude that the order Wright seeks
to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
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 dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to
the district court with instructions to allow Wright to file another 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

2