Filed: Jan. 09, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6346 ALBERT CURTIS MILLS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EUGENE NUTH, Warden, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 97-144-DKC) Submitted: December 23, 1997 Decided: January 9, 1998 Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alber
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6346 ALBERT CURTIS MILLS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EUGENE NUTH, Warden, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 97-144-DKC) Submitted: December 23, 1997 Decided: January 9, 1998 Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Albert..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6346
ALBERT CURTIS MILLS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
EUGENE NUTH, Warden,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA-
97-144-DKC)
Submitted: December 23, 1997 Decided: January 9, 1998
Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Albert Curtis Mills, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 orders dismissing
without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1994) complaint and denying
his motion for reconsideration. The district court dismissed Appel-
lant's complaint without prejudice for failure to allege facts
showing that his constitutional rights were violated. Because a
dismissal without prejudice is not generally appealable, we dismiss
the appeal. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union
392,
10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). 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