Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01979/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01979-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Glenda Ames
Appellee
Dorarena Boyd
Appellant
Beverly Brown
Appellee
Conference Center
Appellee
Department of Planning and Community Development
Appellee
Department of Social Services
Appellee
First Baptist Bute Street
Appellee
Health Department
Appellee
Charlotte Maull
Appellee
Mircle Tabernacle Family Center
Appellee
Robert Murray
Appellee
Sue Myatt
Appellee
Michael Eugene Plummer
Appellee
Regional License
Appellee
Shepherd Village
Appellee
Taste n See
Appellee
Virginia Employment Commission
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1979

DORARENA BOYD, et al.,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

ROBERT MURRAY; BEVERLY BROWN; CHARLOTTE MAULL; SHEPHERD 

VILLAGE; FIRST BAPTIST BUTE STREET; REGIONAL LICENSE; 

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; GLENDA AMES, Regional 

Office; SUE MYATT; DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY 

DEVELOPMENT, Division of Building Safety; HEALTH 

DEPARTMENT; VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION; MICHAEL EUGENE 

PLUMMER; MIRCLE TABERNACLE FAMILY CENTER; TASTE N SEE; 

CONFERENCE CENTER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, 

District Judge. (2:15-cv-00329-AWA-DEM)

Submitted: January 21, 2016 Decided: January 27, 2016

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dorarena Boyd, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1979 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/27/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Dorarena Boyd seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

dismissing her 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 the 

deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by 

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

Boyd 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 (4th Cir. 2015). 

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: 15-1979 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/27/2016 Pg: 2 of 2