Filed: May 03, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7585 RICHARD STEARNSMILLER, a/k/a Richard Stearns- Miller, a/k/a Rick Stearns-Miller, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; SOUTH CAROLINA DE- PARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Falcon B. Hawkins, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-1954-3-11-BC) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 3, 2001 Before LUTTIG
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7585 RICHARD STEARNSMILLER, a/k/a Richard Stearns- Miller, a/k/a Rick Stearns-Miller, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; SOUTH CAROLINA DE- PARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Falcon B. Hawkins, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-1954-3-11-BC) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 3, 2001 Before LUTTIG a..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7585
RICHARD STEARNSMILLER, a/k/a Richard Stearns-
Miller, a/k/a Rick Stearns-Miller,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; SOUTH CAROLINA DE-
PARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Falcon B. Hawkins, Senior District
Judge. (CA-00-1954-3-11-BC)
Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 3, 2001
Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard Stearnsmiller, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Richard Stearnsmiller appeals the district court’s order dis-
missing without prejudice his complaint alleging civil rights
violations under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000). The court
dismissed Stearnsmiller’s complaint because he failed to name the
proper parties. Because Stearnsmiller may proceed with this action
in the district court by amending his complaint to name the proper
defendants, the district court’s order is not a final, appealable
order. 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 materials before the court and argument would not aid the deci-
sional process.
DISMISSED
2