Filed: Jan. 25, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7641 BENJAMIN HENDERSON JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus D. R. GUILLORY; JARVIS; MOORE; KELLY; LAYTON T. LESTER; CARRAGELA; TOWNSEND; HENRY DIXON, Sgt.; RONALD W. ANGELONE; J. GILMORE; GEORGE ALLEN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-711-AM) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 2
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7641 BENJAMIN HENDERSON JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus D. R. GUILLORY; JARVIS; MOORE; KELLY; LAYTON T. LESTER; CARRAGELA; TOWNSEND; HENRY DIXON, Sgt.; RONALD W. ANGELONE; J. GILMORE; GEORGE ALLEN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-711-AM) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 25..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7641
BENJAMIN HENDERSON JONES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
D. R. GUILLORY; JARVIS; MOORE; KELLY; LAYTON
T. LESTER; CARRAGELA; TOWNSEND; HENRY DIXON,
Sgt.; RONALD W. ANGELONE; J. GILMORE; GEORGE
ALLEN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief
District Judge. (CA-95-711-AM)
Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 25, 1996
Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin Henderson Jones, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Benjamin Jones appeals from a district court order dismissing
his complaint without prejudice for failure to amend or particu-
larize. We dismiss.
Because the complaint may be saved by amendment, the appeal of
the order dismissing it is interlocutory and we are without juris-
diction to consider it. Domino Sugar Corp v. Sugar Workers Local
Union 392,
10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1993). Therefore, we
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