Vaughan v. Corr Officer Bledsoe

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6593 RONNIE VAUGHAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BLEDSOE; SERGEANT COLEMAN; GRIEVANCE COORDINATOR BEDWELL; LIEUTENANT CASSEL, Correctional Lieutenant, Powhatan, Investigator Lieutenant; LIEUTENANT ROGERS; SERGEANT BROWN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-02-1756-AM) Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: October 10, 2003 Before LUTTIG and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.* Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronnie Vaughan, Appellant Pro Se. * The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) (2000). Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ronnie Vaughan, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. 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). The order appealed from is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order because Vaughan may proceed by simply amending his complaint to provide proof that he has exhausted his administrative remedies. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we deny Vaughan’s motion for appointment of counsel and 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 2