Freddie Riley v. Ed McMahon, No. 15-6934 (4th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6934 FREDDIE LEE RILEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, and JACQUES CHAVIS; RICK EDWARD TOSCANO; JOEL WOODS, Movants, v. SHERIFF ED MCMAHON; DR. STUBBS; OFFICER CHAPPELL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (5:14-ct-03243-D) Submitted: October 15, 2015 Decided: October 20, 2015 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Freddie Lee Riley, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Freddie Lee Riley seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. With regard to Riley’s appeal of the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his claim of injury to his arm, this court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. Beneficial § 1292 Indus. (2012); Loan Fed. Civ. P. 337 Corp., R. 54(b); U.S. 541, Cohen 545–47 v. (1949). “Dismissals without prejudice are generally not appealable final orders.” 2015). In re GNC Corp., 789 F.3d 505, 511 n.3 (4th Cir. Because the deficiencies in this claim identified by the district court complaint, we interlocutory. may be dismiss remedied this by the portion filing of of the an amended appeal as See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066–67 (4th Cir. 1993). As to Riley’s remaining claims, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the remainder of the district court’s order. Riley v. McMahon, No. 5:14-ct-03243-D (E.D.N.C. June 1, 2015). 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. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 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.