Filed: Dec. 20, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7433 RICHARD A. HOWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JACK LEE, Warden; PRISONERS UNKNOWN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-795-7) Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 20, 2002 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard A. How
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7433 RICHARD A. HOWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JACK LEE, Warden; PRISONERS UNKNOWN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-795-7) Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 20, 2002 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard A. Howe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7433
RICHARD A. HOWELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JACK LEE, Warden; PRISONERS UNKNOWN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CA-02-795-7)
Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 20, 2002
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard A. Howell, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Richard A. Howell appeals the district court’s orders
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint without prejudice
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2000) and denying
reconsideration of that order. Because Howell may be able to
proceed with this action by amending his complaint to allege
sufficient facts to state a claim, the dismissal order is not final
and thus is not subject to appellate review. See Domino Sugar
Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,
10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th
Cir. 1993). We therefore dismiss the appeal. 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
2