Case Name: Donell J. BLOUNT, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. FLEMING; T. Vanover; R. Sutherland; H. Grear; D. Mills, Defendants-Appellees, and Gene M. Johnson, Deputy Director; D.A. Braxton, Warden; R.W. Fleming, Major; Lieutenant Youce; L. Mullins; T. Evans; Y. Taylor; R. Kegley, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-15
Citations: 235 F. App'x 152
Docket Number: No. 07-6114
Parties: Donell J. BLOUNT, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. FLEMING; T. Vanover; R. Sutherland; H. Grear; D. Mills, Defendants—Appellees, and Gene M. Johnson, Deputy Director; D.A. Braxton, Warden; R.W. Fleming, Major; Lieutenant Youce; L. Mullins; T. Evans; Y. Taylor; R. Kegley, Defendants.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 152–153

Head Matter:
Donell J. BLOUNT, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. FLEMING; T. Vanover; R. Sutherland; H. Grear; D. Mills, Defendants—Appellees, and Gene M. Johnson, Deputy Director; D.A. Braxton, Warden; R.W. Fleming, Major; Lieutenant Youce; L. Mullins; T. Evans; Y. Taylor; R. Kegley, Defendants.
No. 07-6114.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 20, 2007.
Decided: Aug. 15, 2007.
Donell J. Blount, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Donell J. Blount, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court's order granting judgment in favor of the Defendants on his excessive force claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) and the district court's denial of his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Blount v. Fleming, No. 7:04-cv-00429-gec, 2007 WL 130181 (W.D.Va. Jan. 16, 2007). 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.
AFFIRMED.
Blount appealed from the court's initial order granting judgment in favor of the Defendants on his excessive force claim, but ordering a further evidentiary hearing on his common fare diet claims. Blount's notice of appeal was interlocutory when filed; however, the district court's subsequent entry of a final judgment prior to our consideration of the appeal cures the jurisdictional defect. See In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 287-89 (4th Cir. 2005); Equipment Fin. Group, Inc. v. Traverse Computer Brokers, 973 F.2d 345, 347-48 (4th Cir.1992). Blount does not appeal the court's disposition of his claims related to his request to receive the common fare diet, based upon his religious needs.