Case ID: f-appx_469/html/0151-01.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

William W. THOMAS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF STAUNTON, VIRGINIA; John Doe #1; John Doe #2; John Doe #3; John Doe #4; John Doe #5; John Doe #6, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-2095.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 24, 2012.
    Decided: March 13, 2012.
    William W. Thomas, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Charles Wirth, Nelson McPherson Summers & Santos, Staunton, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William W. Thomas, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting the Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and dismissing the complaint without prejudice. 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 Thomas may proceed with this action in the district court by amending his complaint to provide specific facts showing his entitlement to the relief he seeks, see Fed. R.Civ.P. 8(a), the order he 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, 1066-67 (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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.