Filed: Feb. 25, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2509 H. LEIGHTON LASKEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF BALTIMORE; MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF BALTIMORE; LAW DEPT. FOR THE CITY OF BALTIMORE; CHRISTOPHER R. LUNDY, Defense Counsel City of Baltimore; PAUL GRAZIANO, Commissioner Baltimore City Housing; THE STATE OF MARYLAND; THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE COURT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2509 H. LEIGHTON LASKEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF BALTIMORE; MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF BALTIMORE; LAW DEPT. FOR THE CITY OF BALTIMORE; CHRISTOPHER R. LUNDY, Defense Counsel City of Baltimore; PAUL GRAZIANO, Commissioner Baltimore City Housing; THE STATE OF MARYLAND; THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE COURT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at B..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2509
H. LEIGHTON LASKEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF BALTIMORE; MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF
BALTIMORE; LAW DEPT. FOR THE CITY OF BALTIMORE; CHRISTOPHER
R. LUNDY, Defense Counsel City of Baltimore; PAUL GRAZIANO,
Commissioner Baltimore City Housing; THE STATE OF MARYLAND;
THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE COURT,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District
Judge. (1:15-cv-02995-CCB)
Submitted: February 23, 2016 Decided: February 25, 2016
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
H. Leighton Laskey, Appellant Pro Se. William Rowe Phelan, Jr.,
BALTIMORE CITY LAW DEPARTMENT, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
H. Leighton Laskey seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his civil action without prejudice. This court
may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders,
28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.
Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949).
Because Laskey may be able to remedy the pleading deficiencies
identified by the district court by filing an amended complaint,
we conclude the order Laskey seeks to appeal is neither a final
order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc.,
807 F.3d 619, 623-24
(4th Cir. 2015); 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