Winston Jones v. A. Daniel, No. 13-7148 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7148 WINSTON C. JONES, Plaintiff Appellant, v. A. W. DANIEL, Unit Manager, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:13-cv-00266-AJT-JFA) Submitted: November 22, 2013 Decided: December 6, 2013 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Winston C. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Winston C. Jones seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with the court s order to file an amended complaint specifically providing the names of each defendant and defendant. the actionable conduct attributable to each This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 54(b); Cohen v. 545-47 (1949). 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, The order Jones seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, because it is possible for him to cure the pleading deficiencies in the complaint that were identified by the district court. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that an order dismissing a complaint without prejudice is a final, appealable order only if no amendment [to the complaint] could cure the defects in the plaintiff s case (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Chao v. Rivendell Woods, Inc., 415 F.3d 342, 345 (4th Cir. 2005) (explaining examine based on against the the that, under appealability specific piecemeal Domino of facts a of litigation 2 Sugar, dismissal the and case this court without in order repetitive must prejudice to guard appeals ). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this 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.