Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02509/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02509-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 15-2509

H. LEIGHTON LASKEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CITY OF BALTIMORE; MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF 

BALTIMORE; LAW DEPT. FOR THE CITY OF BALTIMORE; CHRISTOPHER 

R. LUNDY, Defense Counsel City of Baltimore; PAUL GRAZIANO, 

Commissioner Baltimore City Housing; THE STATE OF MARYLAND; 

THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE COURT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

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

Judge. (1:15-cv-02995-CCB)

Submitted: February 23, 2016 Decided: February 25, 2016

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

H. Leighton Laskey, Appellant Pro Se. William Rowe Phelan, Jr., 

BALTIMORE CITY LAW DEPARTMENT, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2509 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/25/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

H. Leighton Laskey seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing his civil action without prejudice. 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, 545-46 (1949). 

Because Laskey may be able to remedy the pleading deficiencies 

identified by the district court by filing an amended complaint, 

we conclude the order Laskey seeks to appeal is neither a final 

order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 

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 the 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: 15-2509 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/25/2016 Pg: 2 of 2