Robert King v. Dennis Schrader

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal [1000164864-2]; denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis [1000179828-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [1000191200-2] Originating case number: 8:16-cv-03804-DKC. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000299364]. Mailed to: Robert King. [17-7242]

Appeal: 17-7242

Doc: 32

Filed: 05/23/2018

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7242

ROBERT JOSEPH KING,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT NEALL, Acting Secretary of Health; JOHN ROBISON, Chief Executive
Officer, Clifton T. Perkins Hospital Center, In His Individual and Official
Capacity; THOMAS LEWIS, Chief Operating Officer, Clifton T. Perkins Hospital
Center, In His Individual and Official Capacity; INNA TALLER, M.D., Clinical
Director, Clifton T. Perkins Hospital Center, In Her Individual and Official
Capacity; ARAM FARAMARZ MOKHTA ARIA, M.D., Clifton T. Perkins
Hospital Center, In His Individual and Official Capacity; WAYNE NOBLE,
Clifton T. Perkins Hospital Center, In His Individual and Official Capacity;
CHANDRA WIGGINS, Clifton T. Perkins Hospital Center, In Her Individual and
Official Capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:16-cv-03804-DKC)

Submitted: April 30, 2018

Before TRAXLER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Decided: May 23, 2018

Appeal: 17-7242

Doc: 32

Filed: 05/23/2018

Pg: 2 of 3

Robert Joseph King, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen A. Ellis, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 17-7242

Doc: 32

Filed: 05/23/2018

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Robert King seeks to appeal an order of the district court dismissing King’s
complaint on various grounds, in part without prejudice to King’s right to file an
amended complaint. King has taken advantage of the district court’s invitation, and his
amended complaint is now pending in the district court. Appellees have moved to
dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
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, 545-46 (1949). The
order King 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 (4th
Cir. 2015) (“An order dismissing a complaint without prejudice is not an appealable final
order under § 1291 if the plaintiff could save his action by merely amending his
complaint.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Accordingly, we grant Appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal, deny leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny as
moot King’s motion for appointment of counsel.

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

3