UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6384
MR. TROY LAMONT BURRELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MR. T. DOSS, the Superintendent; MR. PROCTOR, Major; MR. WILLIAMS,
Correctional Officer,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:16-cv-00212-HEH-RCY)
Submitted: August 17, 2017 Decided: August 21, 2017
Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Troy Lamont Burrell, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Troy Lamont Burrell seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing without
prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action for failure to adequately comply with the
magistrate judge’s order directing Burrell to particularize the complaint and denying
Burrell’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. 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, 545-47 (1949). Because the deficiencies identified by the district
court may be remedied by the filing of an amended complaint, we conclude that the
orders Burrell seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or
collateral orders. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th
Cir. 2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-
67 (4th Cir. 1993); see also Bridges v. Dep’t of Md. State Police, 441 F.3d 197, 207 (4th
Cir. 2006) (“The denial of reconsideration of a nonappealable order is not a final order”).
Accordingly, we deny Burrell leave to proceed in forma pauperis 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 this court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
*
We do not remand this matter to the district court, because the court previously
afforded Burrell the opportunity to amend his complaint. Cf. Goode, 807 F.3d at 629-30.
2