Filed: Jan. 25, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7626 WILLIAM W. WILKINS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR SARAF, MD; L. GARRIS, RN; DANE HOWELL, NP, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District Judge. (CA-95-243-AM) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 25, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7626 WILLIAM W. WILKINS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR SARAF, MD; L. GARRIS, RN; DANE HOWELL, NP, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District Judge. (CA-95-243-AM) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 25, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opin..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7626
WILLIAM W. WILKINS, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DOCTOR SARAF, MD; L. GARRIS, RN; DANE HOWELL,
NP,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District
Judge. (CA-95-243-AM)
Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 25, 1996
Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William W. Wilkins, Jr., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 (1988) complaint. Appellant's complaint was dismissed
without prejudice to his right to file a proper claim alleging
facts that show specific injury to himself. This court may exercise
jurisdiction only over final orders, and certain interlocutory and
collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b).
Because Appellant may be able to save this action by amending his
complaint, the dismissal order which Appellant seeks to appeal is
not an appealable final order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar
Workers Local Union 392,
10 F.3d 1064 (4th Cir. 1993). 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
2