Filed: Apr. 25, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7716 MARK A. TURNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, and TERRELL HALL; JAMES FARROW; CARLOS FERRIERA, Plaintiffs, versus JAMES MCCAULEY, Director, Richland County Detention Center; LIEUTENANT, Richland County Detention Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-2149-3-21BC) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Deci
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7716 MARK A. TURNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, and TERRELL HALL; JAMES FARROW; CARLOS FERRIERA, Plaintiffs, versus JAMES MCCAULEY, Director, Richland County Detention Center; LIEUTENANT, Richland County Detention Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-2149-3-21BC) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decid..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7716
MARK A. TURNER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
TERRELL HALL; JAMES FARROW; CARLOS FERRIERA,
Plaintiffs,
versus
JAMES MCCAULEY, Director, Richland County
Detention Center; LIEUTENANT, Richland County
Detention Center,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. William B. Traxler, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-95-2149-3-21BC)
Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 25, 1996
Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark A. Turner, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from the district court's order adopting the
magistrate judge's report and recommendation and dismissing without
prejudice this complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988). The
order is not appealable because the defect upon which the dismissal
was based could be cured by amending the complaint. See Domino
Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,
10 F.3d 1064 (4th
Cir. 1993). Accordingly, this Court does not have jurisdiction over
this appeal and it must be dismissed.
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
3