Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07512/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07512-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ralph Kersey
Appellee
Sheriff Department and Detention Center
Appellee
Sulyaman Wasalaam
Appellant
Daryl Williams
Appellee
Christ Young
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7512

SULYAMAN WASALAAM,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CHRIST YOUNG; DARYL WILLIAMS; SHERIFF RALPH KERSEY; SHERIFF 

DEPARTMENT AND DETENTION CENTER,

Defendant - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:15-cv-00642-WO-LPA)

Submitted: January 14, 2016 Decided: January 20, 2016

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sulyaman Wasalaam, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7512 Doc: 18 Filed: 01/20/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Sulyaman Wasalaam seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 

and dismissing without prejudice 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 Wasalaam seeks to appeal is neither a 

final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 

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: 15-7512 Doc: 18 Filed: 01/20/2016 Pg: 2 of 2