Neff v. Roxbury Correctional

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7793 FRANK M. NEFF, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROXBURY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; STATE OF MARYLAND; TALBOT COUNTY, MARYLAND; SOCIAL SERVICE, Easton, Maryland; EASTON MARYLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT; EASTON MARYLAND JAIL; BONNIE RUSS; MARIE HILL, State Attorney; WILLIAM HORNE, Judge; APRIL RUSS; OFFICER; THE CHESAPEAKE CENTER; KAREN WARNER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. M. J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-95- 2899-MJG) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 25, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frank M. Neff, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. As to those claims which the district court properly held must be brought in a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) proceeding, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Neff v. Roxbury Correctional Institution, No. CA-95-2899-MJG (D. Md. Oct. 20, 1995). Because Appellant may amend his complaint to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) with respect to his § 1983 claims, we dismiss this portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064 (4th Cir. 1993); 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988). 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. AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART 2