Filed: Dec. 10, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7443 MICHAEL WAYNE CONNOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHELLE MITCHELL, Sheriff, Richmond City Jail, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-497-2) Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 10, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7443 MICHAEL WAYNE CONNOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHELLE MITCHELL, Sheriff, Richmond City Jail, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-497-2) Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 10, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam o..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7443
MICHAEL WAYNE CONNOR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MICHELLE MITCHELL, Sheriff, Richmond City
Jail,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District
Judge. (CA-01-497-2)
Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 10, 2001
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Wayne Connor, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael Wayne Connor appeals the district court’s order dis-
missing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001)
complaint. The court dismissed Connor’s action because he failed
to comply with the court’s order directing Conner to sign and re-
submit his complaint. Because Conner may proceed with this action
by signing and resubmitting the complaint, the order in question is
not a final, appealable order. See 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 decisional process.
DISMISSED
2