Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07179/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07179-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 15-6740

JAMES L. JACK,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL L. CHAPMAN, Sheriff, LCSO; SEAN DIKEMAN, #2233, 

Deputy, LCSO; LIMA, Deputy, LCSO,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 15-7179

JAMES L. JACK,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL L. CHAPMAN, Sheriff, LCSO; SEAN DIKEMAN, #2233, 

Deputy, LCSO; LIMA, Deputy, LCSO,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Senior

District Judge. (3:14-cv-00390-JRS-RCY)

Submitted: October 20, 2015 Decided: October 22, 2015

Appeal: 15-7179 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/22/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James L. Jack, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7179 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/22/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

James L. Jack appeals from the district court’s orders 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint without 

prejudice for failure to particularize his complaint. Regarding 

No. 15-6740, after Jack filed his notice of appeal, the district 

court vacated the order to afford Jack extra time to respond. 

As the challenged order is no longer in force, we dismiss the 

appeal as moot. Turning to No. 15-7179, because Jack may refile 

his suit in district court with a particularized complaint, the 

dismissal order is interlocutory and not appealable. See Domino 

Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 

1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as 

well. 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

Appeal: 15-7179 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/22/2015 Pg: 3 of 3