Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06934/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06934-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Officer Chappell
Appellee
Jacques Chavis

Ed McMahon
Appellee
Freddie Lee Riley
Appellant
Dr. Stubbs
Appellee
Rick Edward Toscano

Joel Woods

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6934

FREDDIE LEE RILEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

JACQUES CHAVIS; RICK EDWARD TOSCANO; JOEL WOODS,

Movants,

v.

SHERIFF ED MCMAHON; DR. STUBBS; OFFICER CHAPPELL,

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. (5:14-ct-03243-D)

Submitted: October 15, 2015 Decided: October 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Freddie Lee Riley, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6934 Doc: 14 Filed: 10/20/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Freddie Lee Riley seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. 

With regard to Riley’s appeal of the district court’s dismissal

without prejudice of his claim of injury to his arm, 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). 

“Dismissals without prejudice are generally not appealable final 

orders.” In re GNC Corp., 789 F.3d 505, 511 n.3 (4th Cir.

2015). Because the deficiencies in this claim identified by the 

district court may be remedied by the filing of an amended

complaint, we dismiss this portion of the appeal as 

interlocutory. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local 

Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066–67 (4th Cir. 1993).

As to Riley’s remaining claims, we have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the 

remainder of the district court’s order. Riley v. McMahon, No. 

5:14-ct-03243-D (E.D.N.C. June 1, 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.

AFFIRMED IN PART;

DISMISSED IN PART

Appeal: 15-6934 Doc: 14 Filed: 10/20/2015 Pg: 2 of 2