Filed: Nov. 18, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1733 DAVID E. HENDERSON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. SCOTT KOCH; CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:08-cv-01259-WDQ) Submitted: November 13, 2008 Decided: November 18, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1733 DAVID E. HENDERSON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. SCOTT KOCH; CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:08-cv-01259-WDQ) Submitted: November 13, 2008 Decided: November 18, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1733
DAVID E. HENDERSON,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
SCOTT KOCH; CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:08-cv-01259-WDQ)
Submitted: November 13, 2008 Decided: November 18, 2008
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David E. Henderson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David E. Henderson appeals the district court's order
dismissing without prejudice his complaint seeking money damages
from Defendant because Defendant allegedly obstructed the
release of information under the Freedom of Information Act,
5 U.S.C. § 552 (2006), and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)
(2006). Because Henderson may amend his complaint to cure the
defects identified by the district court, we find that the
dismissal order is interlocutory and not appealable. See Chao
v. Rivendell Woods, Inc.,
415 F.3d 342, 345 (4th Cir. 2005);
Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,
10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). 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
2