Filed: Oct. 31, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7438 JOEL WATKINS FULP, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MECKLENBURG COUNTY JAIL, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District Judge. (CA-05-362-2) Submitted: October 20, 2005 Decided: October 31, 2005 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7438 JOEL WATKINS FULP, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MECKLENBURG COUNTY JAIL, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District Judge. (CA-05-362-2) Submitted: October 20, 2005 Decided: October 31, 2005 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7438
JOEL WATKINS FULP,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MECKLENBURG COUNTY JAIL,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-05-362-2)
Submitted: October 20, 2005 Decided: October 31, 2005
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joel Watkins Fulp, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Joel Watkins Fulp appeals from the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action for failure to comply
with its order to file a supplemental complaint to cure the defects
in the original complaint. Because Fulp may cure the defect in his
complaint by filing a supplemental complaint in accordance with the
district court’s order, the dismissal is not appealable. 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 further deny Fulp’s motion to amend
caption. 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 -