Filed: Sep. 10, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6487 NASEEM ASSAMAD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-96-189-AM) Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 10, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam. Naseem Assamad, Appellant Pro Se. Unpub
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6487 NASEEM ASSAMAD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-96-189-AM) Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 10, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam. Naseem Assamad, Appellant Pro Se. Unpubl..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6487
NASEEM ASSAMAD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
RONALD J. ANGELONE,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CA-96-189-AM)
Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 10, 1996
Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam.
Naseem Assamad, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing
without prejudice his action seeking a temporary restraining order
or a preliminary injunction prohibiting the enforcement of a change
in the regulation governing inmate's personal property. The dis-
trict court's dismissal without prejudice is not appealable at
this time, given the fact that Appellant could save his complaint
through amendment. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers' Local Union
392,
10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). This court may exercise
jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and
certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292
(1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan
Corp.,
337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a
final order nor an appealable interlocutory order.
We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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