Michael Sindram v. City of Takoma Park Police Dep, No. 10-1394 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1394 MICHAEL J. SINDRAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF TAKOMA PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT; K. GILBERT; MR. WOLFF, #8352; TERRY JOHNSSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:10-cv-00681-PJM) Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: July 30, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael J. Sindram, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael J. Sindram seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his request for a preliminary injunction and dismissing his complaint without prejudice. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final 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 Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Sindram seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order because it is possible for Sindram to cure the deficiencies in the complaint as noted by the district court. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, jurisdiction. we dismiss the appeal for lack of 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.