Case ID: f-appx_356/html/0642-01.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

David W. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Indian Creek Correctional Center, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-7015.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 29, 2009.
    Decided: Oct. 8, 2009.
    David W. Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David W. Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because Williams’ complaint lacked specificity and offered incomplete proof that Williams had exhausted his administrative remedies, and because these deficiencies may be remedied by the filing of a complaint that articulates adequate facts, we conclude that the order Williams seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066 (4th Cir.1993).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Williams’ motion for appointment of counsel. 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.