Case Name: William D. TURNER, Appellant v. William E. DONNELLY, the Prothonotary; S. Gerald Corso, the President Judge; Montgomery County; Michael Fisher, the Honorable Attorney General, Mr.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-18
Citations: 222 F. App'x 136
Docket Number: No. 06-4333
Parties: William D. TURNER, Appellant v. William E. DONNELLY, the Prothonotary; S. Gerald Corso, the President Judge; Montgomery County; Michael Fisher, the Honorable Attorney General, Mr.
Judges: Before: McKEE, FUENTES and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 222
Pages: 136–136

Head Matter:
William D. TURNER, Appellant v. William E. DONNELLY, the Prothonotary; S. Gerald Corso, the President Judge; Montgomery County; Michael Fisher, the Honorable Attorney General, Mr.
No. 06-4333.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) March 29, 2007.
Filed: April 18, 2007.
William D. Turner, Frackville, PA, pro se.
Philip W. Newcomer, Montgomery County Solicitor’s Office, Norristown, PA, for William E. Donnelly, the Prothonotary.
Before: McKEE, FUENTES and WEIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, William Turner, appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denying his "motion for leave to file a 15(c)(2) relation back rule."
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because Turner has been granted informa pauper-is status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, we review this appeal for possible dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). An appeal may be dismissed if it has no arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989).
Appellant's "motion for leave to file a 15(c)(2) relation back rule" seeks to have the District Court address issues from his original complaint that Appellant asserts were "not addressed." Appellant's motion seeks relief pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c)(2) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b).
The District Court sua sponte dismissed Appellant's complaint as to two defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Thereafter, the District Court granted the remaining defendants' motion pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and dismissed the complaint. We affirmed. C.A. No. 04-4010. Contrary to Appellant's assertion, the District Court addressed the claims presented by Appellant in his complaint and dismissed the complaint in its entirety. Neither Rule 15(c)(2) nor Rule 54(b) provides relief from the entry of that judgment.
For the foregoing reasons, we will dismiss this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).