Idema v. Hadden ( 1996 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 96-6275
    JONATHAN IDEMA; PATRICIA DAWN GLOSSON,
    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    versus
    J. T. HADDEN; PHILLIP WISE; JOHN HAHN, Warden;
    JANET RENO, Attorney General of the United
    States,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    No. 96-6629
    JONATHAN IDEMA; PATRICIA DAWN GLOSSON,
    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    versus
    J. T. HADDEN; PHILLIP WISE; JOHN HAHN, Warden;
    JANET RENO, Attorney General of the United
    States,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    No. 96-6722
    JONATHAN IDEMA; PATRICIA DAWN GLOSSON,
    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    versus
    J. T. HADDEN; PHILLIP WISE; JOHN HAHN, Warden;
    JANET RENO, Attorney General of the United
    States,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District
    Judge. (CA-95-610-5-BR)
    Submitted:   July 23, 1996                  Decided:   July 31, 1996
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jonathan Idema, Patricia Dawn Glosson, Appellants Pro Se. Charles
    Edwin Hamilton, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh,
    North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    In these consolidated appeals, Appellants appeal from the
    district court's order dismissing without prejudice their 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     (1988) action for failure to particularize their complaint
    (No. 96-6275) and denying their motion to reconsider the dismissal
    (No. 96-6722). Because a dismissal without prejudice is generally
    not appealable, we dismiss the appeals. See Domino Sugar Corp. v.
    Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 
    10 F.3d 1064
    , 1066-67 (4th Cir.
    1993). Finally, since Appellants have been granted in forma pau-
    peris status on appeal, we dismiss as moot Appellants' appeal of
    the district court's order directing them to properly complete an
    in forma pauperis application for purposes of appeal (No. 96-6629).
    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
    tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court
    and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 96-6275

Filed Date: 7/31/1996

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021