UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6491
BENNIE DARREN MITCHELL,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
DESIREE R. ALLEN, Court Reporter Manager, South Carolina
Court Administration; JOY E. HOLSTON, Court Reporter,
Official Court Reporter 8th Judicial Circuit,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (8:11-cv-03361-CMC)
Submitted: July 19, 2012 Decided: July 23, 2012
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Bennie Darren Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bennie Darren Mitchell appeals from the district
court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge, dismissing Mitchell’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) civil
rights action without prejudice for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, and denying his self-styled
“Motion for Preliminary Injunction and a Temporary Restraining
Order” seeking injunctive relief. We dismiss in part and affirm
in part.
We dismiss the appeal of Mitchell’s § 1983 claims.
This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders,
28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and
collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541,
545-47 (1949). Because the deficiency identified by the
district court—that Mitchell’s complaint did not assert
sufficient allegations in support of its legal conclusions—may
be remedied by the filing of a complaint that articulates
adequate allegations, we conclude that, as to the dismissal of
the complaint, the district court’s order is neither a final
order 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
this portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
2
With respect to the district court’s denial of
Mitchell’s motion seeking injunctive relief, we have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. Mitchell v.
Allen, No. 8:11-cv-03361-CMC (D.S.C. Mar. 9, 2012). 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 IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
3