Bernard Staten v. Anthony Batts, No. 15-7417 (4th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7417 BERNARD L. STATEN, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. ANTHONY W. BATTS, Baltimore City Police Commissioner; CORPORAL MCEVOY, Badge No. 2784; DETECTIVE MICHAEL, Badge No. 2873; DETECTIVE COLLINS, Badge No. 3254; DETECTIVE NACKE, Badge No. 3322; DETECTIVE LEE, Badge No. 3913; DETECTIVE MCCOLLEN, Badge No. 4066, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District Judge. (1:15-cv-00599-CCB) Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 22, 2015 Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bernard L. Staten, Appellant Pro Se. Kristen Elissa Hitchner, BALTIMORE CITY LAW DEPARTMENT, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bernard L. Staten seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) civil rights action. over final orders, This court may exercise jurisdiction only 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, 545-47 (1949). Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by the filing of an amended complaint, we conclude that the order Staten seeks to appeal is neither a final interlocutory or collateral order. order nor an appealable Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, jurisdiction. 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.