Court Opinion

ID: 1001695
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:59:18.682097+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:17.164726
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

CLARENCE RAYMOND LOCKLEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
                                                                      No. 00-6393
ROBERT ORN, Correctional Officer;
G. JETT, Mail Room Clerk; GEORGE
M. HINKLE, Warden,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.
(CA-99-1355-2)

Submitted: May 11, 2000

Decided: May 23, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Clarence Raymond Lockley, Appellant Pro Se.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Clarence Raymond Lockley appeals from the district court's orders
dismissing without prejudice his complaint alleging civil rights viola-
tions under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) and denying his
motion for a hearing and for reconsideration. The court dismissed
Lockley's complaint based on his failure to comply with its prior
order directing him to submit proof that he had exhausted his admin-
istrative remedies. In his unsworn motion for a hearing and for recon-
sideration, Lockley claimed that he did comply with the court's order
by delivering the required information to prison officials for mailing.
In denying the motion for reconsideration and for a hearing, the dis-
trict court found that proof of exhaustion had not been received by the
court.

Because Lockley may proceed with this action by amending his
complaint to provide the information requested by the court, his
appeal of the order of dismissal is interlocutory and not subject to
appellate review. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local
Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). We therefore dis-
miss that aspect of his appeal.

We have reviewed the court's order denying Lockley's motion for
a hearing and for reconsideration and find no reversible error and no
abuse of discretion. We therefore affirm that order. 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 IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART

                    2