Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08213/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08213-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8213

CARLOS R. MAYBERRY, The Ethnoreligious Order and Voomorphic 

Confraternity of the Black Mafia,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GARY MAYBERRY; CARLTON APPLEWHITE; L. BYNUM; NATACHA 

MAYBERRY; DAYENA CORCORAN; CHERIE PEAY; G. SCHROEDER; J. 

FIELDS; KUTCHERMAN; J. MOSS; NATHANIEL STANLEY, All 

defendants sued individually and in his or her official 

capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. 

(1:09-cv-02366-WDQ)

Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 4, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit 

Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carlos R. Mayberry, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-8213 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/04/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Carlos R. Mayberry appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint without 

prejudice for failure to comply with a court order to 

particularize his 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 (1949). The order Mayberry 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, 1067 (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

Appeal: 09-8213 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/04/2010 Pg: 2 of 2