UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7344
LARRY DOTSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SHEILA TOLLIVER; PAUL CROUSE; DANNY ELSWICK;
COUNTY OF BUCHANAN, W. J. Caudill, County
Administrator; JAMES M. BEVINS; KERMIT OWENS;
KIMBERLY DOTSON; EDWARD A. MATNEY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District
Judge. (CA-02-899)
Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: December 31, 2002
Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry Dotson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Larry Dotson seeks to appeal the district court’s dismissal of
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint alleging conspiracy to deny
access to the courts without prejudice. This court may exercise
jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and
certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292
(2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan
Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). Orders dismissing complaints without
prejudice are generally interlocutory and not appealable. Domino
Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67
(4th Cir. 1993). Because Dotson may be able to preserve this action
by amending his complaint to plead specific facts supporting his
claims of conspiracy, we dismiss his appeal as interlocutory.
Dotson also seeks to recuse the district court judge from his
case. Recusal may be granted if a reasonable person might
reasonably question the judge’s impartiality, and if the apparent
bias stems from an extrajudicial source. See Liteky v. United
States, 510 U.S. 540, 554 (1994); see also In re Beard, 811 F.2d
818, 827 (4th Cir. 1987). Because Dotson has failed to allege bias
stemming from an extrajudicial source, we deny his motion to
recuse. Dotson’s motion for reconsideration of his motion to
supplement the record is denied as moot as the docket sheet
reflects that the district court forwarded the record to this court
subsequent to denying Dotson’s motion for reconsideration. We
2
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
3