William Thomas, Jr. v. City of Staunton, Virginia, No. 11-2095 (4th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2095 WILLIAM W. THOMAS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF STAUNTON, VIRGINIA; JOHN DOE #1; JOHN DOE #2; JOHN DOE #3; JOHN DOE #4; JOHN DOE #5; JOHN DOE #6, Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (7:10-cv-00553-GEC) Submitted: February 24, 2012 Decided: March 13, 2012 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William W. Thomas, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Charles Wirth, NELSON MCPHERSON SUMMERS & SANTOS, Staunton, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William W. Thomas, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court s order granting the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and dismissing the complaint without prejudice. court may exercise jurisdiction only over final This 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 Because court Indus. Thomas by Loan may amending Corp., proceed his 337 with complaint U.S. this to 541, action provide 545-46 in the (1949). district specific facts showing his entitlement to the relief he seeks, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), the order he 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, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for 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 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.