Filed: Feb. 08, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7192 MAURICE HAWKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (CA-04-360-7) Submitted: December 8, 2004 Decided: February 8, 2005 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Maurice Hawkins, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opini
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7192 MAURICE HAWKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (CA-04-360-7) Submitted: December 8, 2004 Decided: February 8, 2005 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Maurice Hawkins, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinio..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7192
MAURICE HAWKINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
J. JOHNSON,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge.
(CA-04-360-7)
Submitted: December 8, 2004 Decided: February 8, 2005
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Maurice Hawkins, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Maurice Hawkins appeals the district court’s order
dismissing without prejudice his action filed under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2000), for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, we
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order 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 -