Filed: Aug. 21, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6070 SHERMAN ROSS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RON ANGELONE, Director; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-964-2) Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 21, 1997 Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6070 SHERMAN ROSS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RON ANGELONE, Director; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-964-2) Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 21, 1997 Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, a..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6070
SHERMAN ROSS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
RON ANGELONE, Director; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CA-96-964-2)
Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 21, 1997
Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sherman Ross, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the dismissal without prejudice of his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. Appellant's complaint was dismissed
without prejudice to his right to resubmit the case with the court
ordered questionnaire. This court may exercise jurisdiction only
over final orders, and certain interlocutory and collateral
orders.1 Because Appellant may be able to save this action by
filing the court ordered questionnaire, the dismissal order which
Appellant seeks to appeal is not an appealable final order.2
Accordingly 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
1
See 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b); Cohen v.
Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. ,
337 U.S. 541 (1949).
2
See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,
10
F.3d 1064 (4th Cir. 1993).
2