Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06347/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06347-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ms. Clanton
Appellee
Ms. Evans
Appellee
Ms. Ferguson (CCS)
Appellee
Ms. Hutchens
Appellee
Ms. McGlauighn (CCS)
Appellee
Dr. Naveed (CCS)
Appellee
Royal Pollard
Appellant
Ms. Reedes
Appellee
Dr. Wright (CCS)
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6347

ROYAL L. POLLARD,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

DR. WRIGHT (CCS), Doctor; MS. CLANTON, Nurse / CCS; MS. 

REEDES, Nurse / CCS; MS. HUTCHENS, Nurse / CCS; MS. EVANS, 

Nurse / CCS; MS. FERGUSON (CCS), H8A Staff; MS. MCGLAUIGHN 

(CCS), Nurse; DR. NAVEED (CCS),

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District 

Judge. (2:16-cv-00025-RAJ-LRL)

Submitted: June 23, 2016 Decided: June 29, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Royal Pollard, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6347 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/29/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Royal Pollard seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. 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). 

Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be 

remedied by the filing of an amended complaint, we conclude that 

the order Pollard seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor 

an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Goode v. Cent. 

Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015); 

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. 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: 16-6347 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/29/2016 Pg: 2 of 2