Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06318/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06318-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mr. Brown
Appellee
LaRon Deloatch
Appellee
Mr. Langley
Appellee
Officer Martinez
Appellee
Jeffery Newton
Appellee
Royal Pollard
Appellant
Mr. Powell
Appellee
Mr. Reynolds
Appellee
Mr. Sapp
Appellee
Ms. Spratley
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6318

ROYAL POLLARD,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

MR. REYNOLDS, Major/Supervisor; MR. SAPP, R.R.J. Officer; MR. 

LARON DELOATCH, R.R.J. Officer; MS. SPRATLEY, R.R.J. 

(Grievance Coordinator); MR. LANGLEY, R.R.J. (Captain); MR. 

POWELL, R.R.J. (OPR Sergant/Coordinator); MR. BROWN (#142), 

R.R.J. (security officer); MR. JEFFERY NEWTON, R.R.J. 

(superintendent); OFFICER MARTINEZ,

 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-00034-RAJ-RJK)

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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 16-6318 Doc: 10 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: 16-6318 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/29/2016 Pg: 2 of 2