Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01701/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01701-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1701

ALBERT WILLIAM LACY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GEORGE CASTELLE, Kanawha Co. Chief Public Defender; BARBARA 

A. BROWN, Deputy Public Defender; JUSTIN COLLIN, Lawyer Public 

Defender; UNKNOWN PUBLIC DEFENDER, 

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Thomas E. Johnston, 

District Judge. (2:13-cv-18215)

Submitted: October 13, 2016 Decided: October 17, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Albert William Lacy, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1701 Doc: 7 Filed: 10/17/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Albert William Lacy seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing 

without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 (2012) complaint. 

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 the filing of an amended complaint, we conclude that the order 

Lacy 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. 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: 16-1701 Doc: 7 Filed: 10/17/2016 Pg: 2 of 2