Case ID: f-appx_620/html/0174-01.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

Freddie Lee RILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Jacques Chavis; Rick Edward Toscano; Joel Woods, Movants, v. Sheriff Ed McMAHON; Dr. Stubbs; Officer Chappell, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-6934.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 15, 2015.
    Decided: Oct. 20, 2015.
    Freddie Lee Riley, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Freddie Lee Riley seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. With regard to Riley’s appeal of the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his claim of injury to his arm, 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, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). “Dismissals without prejudice are generally not appealable final orders.” In re GNC Corp., 789 F.3d 505, 511 n. 3 (4th Cir.2015). Because the deficiencies in this claim identified by the district court may be remedied by the filing of an amended complaint, we dismiss this portion of the appeal as interlocutory. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.1993).

As to Riley’s remaining claims, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the remainder of the district court’s order. Riley v. McMahon, No. 5:14-ct-03243-D, 2015 WL 3465777 (E.D.N.C. June 1, 2015). 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.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.