Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06005/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06005-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Andrews
Appellee
Baxter
Appellee
J. F. Caraway
Appellee
Geoffrey William Hine
Appellant
Lindsley
Appellee
Charles Samuels
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6005

GEOFFREY WILLIAM HINE,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

CHARLES SAMUELS, Director of B.O.P.; J. F. CARAWAY, 

Regional Director; J. ANDREWS, Warden; MS. LINDSLEY, Unit 

Manager; MR. BAXTER, Unit Case Manager,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, 

Chief District Judge. (5:15-ct-03126-D)

Submitted: May 31, 2016 Decided: July 12, 2016

Before WILKINSON and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Geoffrey William Hine, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6005 Doc: 14 Filed: 07/12/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Geoffrey William Hine seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing without prejudice his complaint filed pursuant 

to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of 

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 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). The order Hine seeks 

to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable 

interlocutory or collateral order. See Goode v. Central Va. 

Legal Aid, 807 F.3d 619 (4th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we 

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

to the district court with instructions to allow Hine to file an 

amended complaint. 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: 16-6005 Doc: 14 Filed: 07/12/2016 Pg: 2 of 2