Filed: Jan. 28, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7058 MARK SAMUEL HOSKIE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WESTERN TIDEWATER REGIONAL JAIL, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-801) Submitted: January 15, 1998 Decided: January 28, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished p
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7058 MARK SAMUEL HOSKIE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WESTERN TIDEWATER REGIONAL JAIL, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-801) Submitted: January 15, 1998 Decided: January 28, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished pe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7058
MARK SAMUEL HOSKIE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WESTERN TIDEWATER REGIONAL JAIL,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CA-96-801)
Submitted: January 15, 1998 Decided: January 28, 1998
Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark Samuel Hoskie, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Mark Hoskie appeals from a district court order dismissing his
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1994) complaint based on Hoskie's failure to
comply with the district court's prior order directing Hoskie to
particularize his complaint. Because Hoskie may proceed with this
action by amending his complaint to provide the information re-
quested by the court, his appeal is interlocutory and not subject
to appellate review under Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local
392,
10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss
the 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