Filed: Nov. 14, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7127 DE’SHON PITT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE; T. YATES; BETTY DAVIS; B. J. RAVIZEE, Grievance Coordinator; AWO HARVEY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-576-7) Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: November 14, 2002 Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7127 DE’SHON PITT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE; T. YATES; BETTY DAVIS; B. J. RAVIZEE, Grievance Coordinator; AWO HARVEY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-576-7) Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: November 14, 2002 Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, S..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7127
DE’SHON PITT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
RONALD J. ANGELONE; T. YATES; BETTY DAVIS; B.
J. RAVIZEE, Grievance Coordinator; AWO HARVEY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
Judge. (CA-02-576-7)
Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: November 14, 2002
Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
De’shon Pitt, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
De’shon Pitt appeals the district court’s order dismissing his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A (2000). Because Pitt may cure any deficiency by
filing an amended complaint, we dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction, because the judgment 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). 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