Filed: Aug. 07, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6088 JOSEPH RIDDICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; US GOV- ERNMENT, Western District of Virginia; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-96-8-R) Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 7, 1996 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLI
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6088 JOSEPH RIDDICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; US GOV- ERNMENT, Western District of Virginia; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-96-8-R) Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 7, 1996 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIP..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6088
JOSEPH RIDDICK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; US GOV-
ERNMENT, Western District of Virginia; UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge.
(CA-96-8-R)
Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 7, 1996
Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Riddick, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) complaint. Because
Appellant could have amended his complaint to assert some claim,
the district court's dismissal without prejudice is not appealable.
See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers' Local Union 392,
10 F.3d
1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal
for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-
terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
2