Notice: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) States That Citation of Unpublished Dispositions is Disfavored Except for Establishing Res Judicata, Estoppel, or the Law of the Case and Requires Service of Copies of Cited Unpublished Dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.wooston Osborne, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Department of Corrections; Commonwealth of Virginia,defendants-appellees, 76 F.3d 374 (4th Cir. 1996)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 76 F.3d 374 (4th Cir. 1996) Submitted: January 18, 1996. Decided: February 8, 1996

Wooston Osborne, Appellant Pro Se.

Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:


Wooston Osborne appeals the dismissal without prejudice of his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. The district court dismissed Osborne's complaint for failure to state a cognizable § 1983 claim. This Court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Because Osborne may be able to save this action by amending his complaint in compliance with the district court's order, the order which Osborne seeks to appeal is not an appealable final order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064 (1993). We note that Osborne can save this action by amending his complaint to include allegations against specific prison employees or officials who acted under color of state law, or against private individuals who were willful participants in a joint action with a State or agent of a State. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-50 (1988); Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 27-28 (1980).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 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

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.