Mayberry v. Mayberry ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-8213
    CARLOS R. MAYBERRY, The Ethnoreligious Order and Voomorphic
    Confraternity of the Black Mafia,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    GARY MAYBERRY; CARLTON APPLEWHITE; L. BYNUM; NATACHA
    MAYBERRY; DAYENA CORCORAN; CHERIE PEAY; G. SCHROEDER; J.
    FIELDS;   KUTCHERMAN; J.  MOSS;  NATHANIEL STANLEY,  All
    defendants sued individually and in his or her official
    capacity,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.    Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
    (1:09-cv-02366-WDQ)
    Submitted:   July 27, 2010                 Decided:   August 4, 2010
    Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit
    Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Carlos R. Mayberry, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Carlos R. Mayberry appeals the district court’s order
    dismissing      his    
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
        (2006)       complaint          without
    prejudice     for     failure     to     comply      with     a     court      order      to
    particularize         his    complaint.             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
     (1949).                   The order Mayberry seeks to
    appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory
    or collateral order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers
    Local   Union       392,     
    10 F.3d 1064
    ,    1067        (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 before the
    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-8213

Filed Date: 8/4/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021