Filed: Nov. 26, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7106 TIMOTHY A. JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. YOLANDA SMITH MOORE, Counselor, Haynesville Correctional Unit #17; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (3:11-cv-00595-JRS) Submitted: November 20, 2012 Decided: November 26, 2012 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit Jud
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7106 TIMOTHY A. JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. YOLANDA SMITH MOORE, Counselor, Haynesville Correctional Unit #17; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (3:11-cv-00595-JRS) Submitted: November 20, 2012 Decided: November 26, 2012 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit Judg..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7106
TIMOTHY A. JONES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
YOLANDA SMITH MOORE, Counselor, Haynesville Correctional
Unit #17; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (3:11-cv-00595-JRS)
Submitted: November 20, 2012 Decided: November 26, 2012
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit
Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy A. Jones, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Timothy A. Jones filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006)
complaint in the district court. He appeals the district
court’s order dismissing his action without prejudice for
failure to comply with the magistrate judge’s order informing
Jones that he needed to particularize his complaint.
This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and
collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541, 545-
47 (1949). Because the deficiencies identified by the district
court, that Jones failed to particularize his claims, may be
remedied by the filing of a complaint that satisfies the
requirements of the district court, we conclude that the
district court’s order is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
2