Filed: Dec. 19, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7318 ANTHONY LEON HOOVER ELS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; ROY COOPER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:14-cv-00564-CCE-LPA) Submitted: December 16, 2014 Decided: December 19, 2014 Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7318 ANTHONY LEON HOOVER ELS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; ROY COOPER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:14-cv-00564-CCE-LPA) Submitted: December 16, 2014 Decided: December 19, 2014 Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpub..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7318
ANTHONY LEON HOOVER ELS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; ROY COOPER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:14-cv-00564-CCE-LPA)
Submitted: December 16, 2014 Decided: December 19, 2014
Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Leon Hoover, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Leon Hoover appeals the district court’s order
adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge
and dismissing his complaint without prejudice for inter alia
failure to file the complaint on the required forms and failure
to include all necessary information. Because Hoover may refile
his suit by filing his complaint in accordance with the district
court’s directions, the dismissal order is interlocutory and 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 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