UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6670
JOSEPH LAGANA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BOBBY SHEARIN, Warden; DR. COLLIN OHEY; DR. AVA JOUBEIT; PA
GREG FLUIY; JANICE GILLMORE; ESTATE BARBARA NEWLON; RN BILL
BEEMON; RN MONICA METHERY; RN KRISSY CORTEZ; RN CARLA BUCK;
RN DAWN HAWK; LPN KELLY; LPN VICKIE; LPN MICHELLE; LT WILT;
SGT ZAIG; LT M. YACENECH; CHRISTINE B.; JANETTE SIMMONS;
CHAPLAIN LAMP; FRANK BISHOP, Warden; PA LUM; RN MARTIN; J.
MICHAEL STOUFFER, Commission; SCOTT OAKLEY; SHARON BAUCOM;
DR. GETACHEW; PATRICIA DOVE; RHONDA SKIDMORE; LPN JANE; PA
GREG FLURY; LPN KIM; DR. ODIFIE; CORIZON, INC.; WEXFORD
HEALTH; CMS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:14-cv-00970-PJM)
Submitted: July 29, 2014 Decided: August 1, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Lagana, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Lagana appeals the district court’s order
dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)
complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8(a)(2). ∗ 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2012). 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). Because Lagana
may proceed with his timely claims by amending his complaint to
provide a “short and plain” statement of the facts showing his
entitlement to relief, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the order he
seeks to appeal is neither a final order with respect to those
claims nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
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
∗
Lagana does not contest on appeal the district court’s
dismissal with prejudice of his claims that were barred by the
statute of limitations.
2
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3