Maurice Dunbar v. James Mett, No. 11-6716 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6716 MAURICE DUNBAR, Plaintiff - Appellant, and REGINALD C. MACK; LLOYD BENNETT; TERENCE HAYES; JEREMIAH BARTLEY; RAYMOND FLORES; JOHNNY BURCH; SHERMAN A. DAVIS; DAVID LEE CRADLE, JR.; ISAAC NELSON; JORGE MUNGUIA; JIMMIE JACKSON, JR.; MIAMI SIMPSON; CHARLES PRYOR; JUSTIN L. JONES; MICHAEL MCCOY; DAVID JOHNSON; ANTHONY RILEY; QUINCY HOLLEY; MARLON CURRY; ADRIAN CORNELIUS; JAMES JOHNSON; ARMANDO GOMEZ-JAIMEZ; MARLOS STEVENSON; VINCENT L. PINKARD; MARCELO ARANDA RANGEL; FRANKLIN J. DOUGLAS; HENRY WISE; JOSE JAIRO LOPEZ; KEITH BRANNON; JAMAL JOHNSON; JEFFERY L. JONES; WESLEY CHANDLER; ANTOINE C. BAKER; WILLIAM L. NEWTON; ANTONIO HARMON; TOBY HAMM; JAMES BROOKS; EDWIN TODD SANDERS; MICHAEL TILLMAN; CURTIS JACKSON; JEROME CROSSLAND; VAUGHNTA JONES; TAYON YOUNG; CLARENCE PADGETT; JOHNNY DICKERSON; BRIAN WILLIAMSON; LUCIO CAVANYA MENDEZ; FELIPE DEJESUS ALVARADO BALDERAS; RIAN LOPEZ; WILLIAM ERNEST BETHEL, Plaintiffs, versus JAMES METTS, in charge of Lexington County Detention Center; CITY COUNCIL, or Person Oursee of the Courts, Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:10-cv-01775-HMH) Submitted: October 18, 2011 Decided: October 21, 2011 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Maurice Dunbar, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Maurice adopting the Dunbar magistrate appeals judge s the district recommendation his complaint without prejudice. court s and order dismissing Because Dunbar may amend his complaint to cure the defects identified by the district court, the dismissal order is interlocutory and not appealable. Chao v. Rivendell Woods, Inc., 415 F.3d 342, 345 (4th See Cir. 2005); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066 67 (4th Cir. 1993). appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss the 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 3

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.