Filed: Jun. 04, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6092 JOHN DOUGLAS HASTINGS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE; GENE M. JOHNSON; PATRICK J. GURNEY; GEORGE E. DEEDS; S. R. VANN; SERGEANT KELLY; MARGARET WATKINS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-95-1044-R) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 4, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, C
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6092 JOHN DOUGLAS HASTINGS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE; GENE M. JOHNSON; PATRICK J. GURNEY; GEORGE E. DEEDS; S. R. VANN; SERGEANT KELLY; MARGARET WATKINS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-95-1044-R) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 4, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Ci..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6092
JOHN DOUGLAS HASTINGS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
RONALD J. ANGELONE; GENE M. JOHNSON; PATRICK
J. GURNEY; GEORGE E. DEEDS; S. R. VANN;
SERGEANT KELLY; MARGARET WATKINS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.
(CA-95-1044-R)
Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 4, 1996
Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Douglas Hastings, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from a district court order dismissing his
complaint without prejudice for failure to amend. We dismiss the
appeal.
This court is without jurisdiction to hear an appeal con-
cerning an order dismissing an action without prejudice where the
underlying defect could be cured by simple amendment of the com-
plaint. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,
10
F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1993). Therefore, we dismiss the current
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