Timothy Jones v. Yolanda Moore, No. 12-7106 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7106 TIMOTHY A. JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. YOLANDA SMITH MOORE, Counselor, Unit #17; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE, Haynesville Correctional Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (3:11-cv-00595-JRS) Submitted: November 20, 2012 Before TRAXLER, Judges. Chief Judge, Decided: November 26, 2012 and SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy A. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Timothy complaint court s in A. the order Jones filed district dismissing a 42 U.S.C. He appeals court. his action without § 1983 the (2006) district prejudice for failure to comply with the magistrate judge s order informing Jones that he needed to particularize his complaint. 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, 54547 (1949). Because the deficiencies identified by the district court, that Jones failed to particularize his claims, may be remedied by requirements district the of filing the court s appealable of a complaint district court, that we satisfies conclude order is neither a final interlocutory or collateral order. the that order the nor Domino an Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). jurisdiction. Accordingly, 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 this 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.
