Bobby Nicholson, Jr. v. Harold Clarke, No. 14-6217 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6217 BOBBY MAURICE NICHOLSON, JR., Plaintiff Appellant, v. HAROLD CLARKE, Director; JOHN GARMAN, West Regional Director; RANDY MATHENA; ASSISTANT KISER, Assistant Warden (Old) of Wallens Ridge S.P. and Red Onion S.P.; EDDIE L. PEARSON, Warden/Old Warden of Sussex 1 S.P.; P. KELLY, Old Warden; J. BOONE, Assistant Warden; LIEUTENANT HIGTH, Intel / Investigator Supervisor; JERRY OATE, III; F. ADAM, Sergeant; OFFICER NATHIN, Correctional Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O Grady, District Judge. (1:13-cv-00875-LO-JFA) Submitted: March 27, 2014 Before MOTZ, Circuit Circuit Judges. Judge, Decided: and HAMILTON and April 1, 2014 DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bobby Maurice Nicholson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bobby Maurice Nicholson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint court s without order prejudice directing particularizing his for failure him to claims. to file This comply a with form court the complaint 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, 545-46 (1949). seeks to appeal is neither a final order The order Nicholson nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, as Nicholson may be able to save his action by amending his complaint to cure the pleading deficiencies identified by the district court. Domino 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 deny Nicholson s motions for counsel and for documentary evidence. 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.