Kenneth Newkirk v. Norma Capp, No. 14-6387 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6387 KENNETH H. NEWKIRK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NORMA JEAN CAPP, Ms., Magistrate, Issue Search Warrants; ROBERT LITTLE, Mr., Detective, Solve Mysteries; R. MAYER, Mr., Detective-Detective, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:13-cv-00074-HEH) Submitted: July 24, 2014 Before FLOYD and Circuit Judge. THACKER, Decided: July 28, 2014 Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth H. Newkirk, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kenneth H. Newkirk appeals the district court s order directing him to particularize his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint and denying his motion for appointment of counsel. We may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. Cohen Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949). v. When a notice of appeal is premature, the jurisdictional defect can be cured if the district court enters a final judgment prior to our consideration of the appeal under the doctrine of cumulative finality. Equip. Fin. Grp., Inc. v. Traverse Computer Brokers, 973 345, F.2d premature 347-48 finality notices rule; of (4th Cir. 1992). appeal are subject instead, this doctrine However, to applies the not all cumulative only when the appellant appeals from an order that the district court could have certified for immediate appeal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 287-89 (4th Cir. 2005). from clearly Newkirk finality. seeks interlocutory to Id. appeal, at 288 decision[s], cannot (internal be such saved quotation as under marks Appeals the one cumulative omitted). Accordingly, although the district court has entered its final order dismissing Newkirk s action, we dismiss Newkirk s appeal as interlocutory. 2 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED 3

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.