Troy Burrell v. T. Doss, No. 17-6384 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6384 MR. TROY LAMONT BURRELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MR. T. DOSS, the Superintendent; MR. PROCTOR, Major; MR. WILLIAMS, Correctional Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:16-cv-00212-HEH-RCY) Submitted: August 17, 2017 Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Troy Lamont Burrell, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Decided: August 21, 2017 PER CURIAM: Troy Lamont Burrell seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action for failure to adequately comply with the magistrate judge’s order directing Burrell to particularize the complaint and denying Burrell’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949). Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by the filing of an amended complaint, we conclude that the orders Burrell seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 106667 (4th Cir. 1993); see also Bridges v. Dep’t of Md. State Police, 441 F.3d 197, 207 (4th Cir. 2006) (“The denial of reconsideration of a nonappealable order is not a final order”). Accordingly, we deny Burrell leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED * We do not remand this matter to the district court, because the court previously afforded Burrell the opportunity to amend his complaint. Cf. Goode, 807 F.3d at 629-30. 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.
