Case Name: 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
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-27
Citations: 363 F. App'x 266
Docket Number: No. 09-7414
Parties: 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.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 363
Pages: 266–266

Head Matter:
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.
No. 09-7414.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 19, 2010.
Decided: Jan. 27, 2010.
Nekita Antonio White, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (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.