Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07414/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07414-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mr. Dunn
Appellee
Mr. Ezell
Appellee
Johnson
Appellee
Mr. Lenyon
Appellee
Mr. Maskelony
Appellee
Moffet
Appellee
Antonio Parham
Appellee
Mr. Perker
Appellee
Mr. Roberts
Appellee
Nekita Antonio White
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7414

NEKITA ANTONIO WHITE, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

ANTONIO PARHAM, WTRJ Officer; MR. MASKELONY, WTRJ Officer; 

MR. LENYON, WTRJ Officer; MR. DUNN, WTRJ Officer; MR. 

PERKER, WTRJ Officer; MR. EZELL, WTRJ Officer; MR. ROBERTS, 

WTRJ Officer; JOHNSON, WTRJ Officer; MOFFET, WTRJ Officer, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior 

District Judge. (1:09-cv-00320-TSE-TCB) 

Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 27, 2010 

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Nekita Antonio White, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 09-7414 Doc: 18 Filed: 01/27/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Nekita Antonio White seeks to appeal the district 

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

(2006) complaint for failure to follow the court’s earlier order 

requiring him to particularize and amend his complaint. This 

court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 

U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral 

orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen

v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). 

Because White’s complaint lacked specificity and he failed to 

remedy this fact by filing an amended complaint that articulated 

adequate facts, we conclude that the order White 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 (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 the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-7414 Doc: 18 Filed: 01/27/2010 Pg: 2 of 2