Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06943/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06943-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6943

ANTHONY BUSSIE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JUDGE KEENAN; JUDGE FLOYD; JUDGE HARRIS; JUDGE BRITT; JUDGE 

BUMB,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District 

Judge. (2:16-cv-00238-RAJ-RJK)

Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 22, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Bussie, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6943 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/22/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Bussie seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

dismissing without prejudice his petition for a writ of mandamus 

for failure to allege sufficient facts in support of his petition.

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 (1949). Because 

the deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied 

by filing an amended petition, we conclude that the order Bussie 

seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable 

interlocutory or collateral order. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal 

Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015); Domino Sugar 

Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th 

Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of

jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court with 

instructions to allow Bussie to amend his petition. See Goode, 

807 F.3d at 630. 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 AND REMANDED

Appeal: 16-6943 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/22/2016 Pg: 2 of 2