Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06937/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06937-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Raheem Akbar Shabazz Floyd
Appellant
Edward J. McMahon
Appellee
M. J. Mosall
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6937

RAHEEM AKBAR SHABAZZ FLOYD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

EDWARD J. MCMAHON, Sheriff; M. J. MOSALL,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:15-ct-03309-FL)

Submitted: October 13, 2016 Decided: October 18, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raheem Akbar Shabazz Floyd, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6937 Doc: 10 Filed: 10/18/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Raheem Akbar Shabazz Floyd seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

(2012) complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012) for 

failing to allege a constitutional violation. This court may 

exercise jurisdiction 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). The order Floyd 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, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we 

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to 

the district court with instructions to allow Floyd to file an 

amended complaint. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 

807 F.3d 619, 623-24, 630 (4th Cir. 2015). 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: 16-6937 Doc: 10 Filed: 10/18/2016 Pg: 2 of 2