UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6217
BOBBY MAURICE NICHOLSON, JR.,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE, Director; JOHN GARMAN, West Regional
Director; RANDY MATHENA; ASSISTANT KISER, Assistant Warden
(Old) of Wallens Ridge S.P. and Red Onion S.P.; EDDIE L.
PEARSON, Warden/Old Warden of Sussex 1 S.P.; P. KELLY, Old
Warden; J. BOONE, Assistant Warden; LIEUTENANT HIGTH, Intel
/ Investigator Supervisor; JERRY OATE, III; F. ADAM,
Sergeant; OFFICER NATHIN, Correctional Officer,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:13-cv-00875-LO-JFA)
Submitted: March 27, 2014 Decided: April 1, 2014
Before MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bobby Maurice Nicholson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bobby Maurice Nicholson, Jr., seeks to appeal the
district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006)
complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with the
court’s order directing him to file a form complaint
particularizing his claims. 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.
§ 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.
Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Nicholson
seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order, as Nicholson may be able to
save his action by amending his complaint to cure the pleading
deficiencies identified by the district court. 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 deny Nicholson’s motions for counsel and for
documentary evidence. 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