Filed: Jul. 01, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6333 KEVIN D. THOMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus POWHATAN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, et al, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-119) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 1, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin D. Thompson
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6333 KEVIN D. THOMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus POWHATAN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, et al, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-119) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 1, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin D. Thompson,..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6333
KEVIN D. THOMPSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
POWHATAN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, et al,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief
District Judge. (CA-96-119)
Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 1, 1996
Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin D. Thompson, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 action entitled "Show Cause for a Temporary
Restraining Order." The district court's dismissal without preju-
dice is not appealable at this time, given the fact that Appellant
could save his complaint through amendment. Domino Sugar Corp. v.
Sugar Workers' Local Union 392,
10 F.3d 1064 (4th Cir. 1993). This
court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28
U.S.C. § 1292 (1992) (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Bene-
ficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here ap-
pealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory
order.
We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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