Stephanie Shackleford v. Riverside Regional Medical Center

466 F. App'x 287

4th Cir.

2012

Check Treatment

Docket

Stephanie SHACKLEFORD; Javier Diaz-Bey, Plaintiffs--Appellants, v. RIVERSIDE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant--Appellee.

No. 11-2246

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Submitted: Feb. 16, 2012. Decided: Feb. 21, 2012.

468 F. App‘x 287

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Stephanie Shackleford, Javier Diaz-Bey, Appellants pro se. Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Stephanie Shackleford and Javier Diaz-Bey seek to appeal the district court‘s order dismissing without prejudice their complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2006). This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because the deficiency identified by the district court—that the complaint did not assert sufficient allegations in support of its legal conclusions—may be remedied by the filing of a complaint that articulates adequate allegations, we conclude that the order Shackleford and Diaz-Bey seek to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.1993).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.

Christopher Q. REID, Plaintiff--Appellant, v. EG&G TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant--Appellee.

No. 11-2128

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Submitted: Feb. 16, 2012. Decided: Feb. 21, 2012.

468 F. App‘x 288

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Christopher Q. Reid, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael Lucas, Jackson Lewis, LLP, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Q. Reid appeals the magistrate judge‘s final order granting EG&G Technical Services Inc.‘s motion for summary judgment.^* We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Reid v. EG&G Technical Servs., Inc., No. 2:10-cv-00448-TEM, 2011 WL 3440029 (E.D.Va. Aug. 8, 2011). We deny Reid‘s pending motions to seal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Notes

The parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by the magistrate judge, as permitted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).