Patrick Parker, Sr. v. Joseph Higgs, Jr., No. 09-7160 (4th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7160 PATRICK O. PARKER, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOSEPH A. HIGGS, JR., Superintendent; L. WALLACE, Ombudsman; R. WILSON, Mr., Deputy Superintendent; SIMPSON, Sgt., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:06-cv-00663-REP) Submitted: December 15, 2009 Decided: December 17, 2009 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrick O. Parker, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Alexander Francuzenko, COOK, KITTS & FRANCUZENKO, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Patrick O. Parker, Sr., appeals a district court order dismissing his interference civil with his rights right complaint to concerning worship. Insofar alleged as Parker appeals the order granting summary judgment to Simpson, we have reviewed the record and the district court s order and affirm See Parker v. for the reasons cited by the district court. Higgs, No. 3:06-cv-00663-REP (E.D. Va. June 4, 2009). as Parker from prejudice without appeals his the district complaint court Insofar order dismissing the remaining against Defendants, a dismissal without prejudice is not reviewable by this court unless the reasons stated for the dismissal clearly disclose that defects. no amendment to the complaint could cure its See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Because Parker could cure the defect in the complaint, we dismiss in part the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.