Case ID: f-appx_151/html/0230-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Michael J. SINDRAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John ZACKER, Defendant—Appellee.
    Nos. 05-1548, 05-1694, 05-1718.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 27, 2005.
    Decided Sept. 29, 2005.
    Michael J. Sindram, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 86(c).

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Michael J. Sindram appeals a district court order and judgment dismissing without prejudice his civil rights complaint, denying a motion for a temporary restraining order and denying a motion for clarification and modification. In dismissing without prejudice Sindram’s complaint, the court instructed Sindram as to the deficiencies in the complaint and how they may be cured. Because Sindram may refile his complaint, 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). Likewise, we dismiss the appeals from the orders denying his motion for a TRO and denying his motion for clarification. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals 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