THOMAS v. CITY OF STAUNTON, 11-2095. (2012)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20120313117
Visitors: 3
Filed: Mar. 13, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 13, 2012
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William W. Thomas, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order granting the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and dismissing the complaint without prejudice. 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 , 545-46 (19
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William W. Thomas, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order granting the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and dismissing the complaint without prejudice. 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 , 545-46 (194..
More
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William W. Thomas, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order granting the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and dismissing the complaint without prejudice. 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, 545-46 (1949). Because Thomas may proceed with this action in the district court by amending his complaint to provide specific facts showing his entitlement to the relief he seeks, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), the order he seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral 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.
Source: Leagle
