Filed: Nov. 18, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1866 DAVID E. HENDERSON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. DAVID D. DOWNES; MELVIN HIRSHMAN; DEBRA ZACHRY, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:08-cv-01264-JFM) Submitted: November 13, 2008 Decided: November 18, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Davi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1866 DAVID E. HENDERSON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. DAVID D. DOWNES; MELVIN HIRSHMAN; DEBRA ZACHRY, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:08-cv-01264-JFM) 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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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UNPUBLISHED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. 08-1866
DAVID E. HENDERSON,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
DAVID D. DOWNES; MELVIN HIRSHMAN; DEBRA ZACHRY,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge.
(1:08-cv-01264-JFM)
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 against Defendants
for intentional infliction of emotional distress. 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