Raymond Bethel, Jr. v. Department of State Police, No. 14-7375 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7375 RAYMOND V. BETHEL, JR., Plaintiff – Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY, Defendant - Appellee. No. 14-7377 RAYMOND V. BETHEL, JR., Plaintiff – Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:14-cv-00170-HEH-MHL; 3:14-cv-00183-HEH-MHL) Submitted: November 18, 2014 Decided: November 21, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond V. Bethel, Jr,. Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Raymond V. Bethel, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing without prejudice (2012). his related actions filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 54(b); Cohen v. 545-46 (1949). 28 U.S.C. Beneficial § 1292 Indus. (2012); Loan Fed. Corp., R. 337 Civ. U.S. P. 541, The orders Bethel seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders, as Bethel may be able to amend his respective complaints to cure the pleading deficiency identified by the district court. * See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). motions to jurisdiction. amend and Accordingly, we deny Bethel’s dismiss the appeals 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 * Insofar as Bethel’s motions to amend, filed in this court, seek to amend his § 1983 complaints, we note that such amendment must be sought in the district court. We express no opinion as to the effectiveness or propriety of his proposed amendments. 3