Case ID: f-appx_582/html/0149-01.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

Joseph LAGANA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bobby SHEARIN, Warden; Dr. Collin Ohey; Dr. Ava Joubeit; PA Greg Fluiy; Janice Gillmore; Estate Barbara Newlon; RN Bill Beemon; RN Monica Methery; RN Krissy Cortez; RN Carla Buck; RN Dawn Hawk; LPN Kelly; LPN Vickie; LPN Michelle; Lt. Wilt; Sgt. Zaig; Lt. M. Yacenech; Christine B.; Janette Simmons; Chaplain Lamp; Frank Bishop, Warden; PA Lum; RN Martin; J. Michael Stouffer, Commission; Scott Oakley; Sharon Baucom; Dr. Getachew; Patricia Dove; Rhonda Skid-more; LPN Jane; PA Greg Flury; LPN Kim; Dr. Odifie; Corizon, Inc.; Wexford Health; CMS, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-6670.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 29, 2014.
    Decided: Aug. 1, 2014.
    ■ Joseph Lagaña, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Joseph Lagana appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2012). 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 Carp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because Lagaña may proceed with his timely claims by amending his complaint to provide a “short and plain” statement of the facts showing his entitlement to relief, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), the order he seeks to appeal is neither a final order with respect to those claims nor an appeal-able interlocutory or collateral order. 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. 
      
       Lagaña does not contest on appeal the district court's dismissal with prejudice of his claims that were barred by the statute of limitations,