Nekita White v. Dunn, 4th Cir. (2011)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsNekita White v. Dunn, 4th Cir. (2011)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6644
NEKITA ANTONIO WHITE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DUNN, Correctional Officer; TWINE, Correctional Officer;
ROBERTS,
Correctional
Officer;
CARLENS,
Correctional
Officer; MCQUEEN, Correctional Officer; MOJET, Correctional
Officer;
JACKSON,
Correctional
Officer;
MASKELUNY,
Correctional Officer; PARHAM, Correctional Officer; WHALENS,
Correctional
Officer;
PIEARCE,
Correctional
Officer;
RAWLINGS, Correctional Officer; EZELL, Correctional Officer;
MOFFET, Correctional Officer,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
T.S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:10-cv-00349-TSE-IDD)
Submitted:
July 28, 2011
Decided:
August 2, 2011
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nekita Antonio White, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nekita
Antonio
White
seeks
to
appeal
the
district
courts order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. 1983
(2006) complaint for failure to follow the courts earlier order
requiring him to particularize and amend his complaint. This
court
may
exercise
jurisdiction
only
over
final
orders,
28
U.S.C. 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral
orders. 28 U.S.C. 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.
Beneficial
Indus.
Loan
Corp.,
337
U.S.
541,
545-46
(1949).
Because Whites complaint lacked specificity and he failed to
remedy this fact by filing an amended complaint that articulated
adequate facts, we conclude that the order White seeks to appeal
is
neither
collateral
final
order.
order
nor
an
Generally
appealable
district
without prejudice is not appealable.
interlocutory
courts
or
dismissal
See Domino Sugar Corp. v.
Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066 (4th Cir.
1993) (holding that a plaintiff may not appeal the dismissal of
his complaint without prejudice unless the grounds for dismissal
clearly indicate that no amendment in the complaint could cure
the defects in the plaintiffs case).
Accordingly, we 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 the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
