UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6387
KENNETH H. NEWKIRK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NORMA JEAN CAPP, Ms., Magistrate, Issue Search Warrants;
ROBERT LITTLE, Mr., Detective, Solve Mysteries; R. MAYER,
Mr., Detective-Detective,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:13-cv-00074-HEH)
Submitted: July 24, 2014 Decided: July 28, 2014
Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth H. Newkirk, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth H. Newkirk appeals the district court’s order
directing him to particularize his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)
complaint and denying his motion for appointment of counsel.
We may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders
and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. Cohen v.
Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949). When a
notice of appeal is premature, the jurisdictional defect can be
cured if the district court enters a final judgment prior to our
consideration of the appeal under the doctrine of cumulative
finality. Equip. Fin. Grp., Inc. v. Traverse Computer Brokers,
973 F.2d 345, 347-48 (4th Cir. 1992). However, not all
premature notices of appeal are subject to the cumulative
finality rule; instead, this doctrine applies only when the
appellant appeals from an order that the district court could
have certified for immediate appeal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 287-89 (4th Cir. 2005). Appeals
from “clearly interlocutory decision[s],” such as the one
Newkirk seeks to appeal, cannot be saved under cumulative
finality. Id. at 288 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Accordingly, although the district court has entered its final
order dismissing Newkirk’s action, we dismiss Newkirk’s appeal
as interlocutory.
2
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
3