Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4 views

    James L. Jack v. Michael L. Chapman, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes two appeals by James L. Jack of orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Regarding the first appeal (No. 15-6740), the court dismisses it as moot because the district court vacated the challenged order. For the second appeal (No. 15-7179), the court dismisses it because the district court's order of dismissal without prejudice was interlocutory and not appealable, as Jack could refile his suit with a particularized complaint. The court therefore dismisses both appeals.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    James L. Jack v. Michael L. Chapman, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views3 pages
    This document summarizes two appeals by James L. Jack of orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Regarding the first appeal (No. 15-6740), the court dismisses it as moot because the district court vacated the challenged order. For the second appeal (No. 15-7179), the court dismisses it because the district court's order of dismissal without prejudice was interlocutory and not appealable, as Jack could refile his suit with a particularized complaint. The court therefore dismisses both appeals.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-10-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-6740

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes two appeals by James L. Jack of orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Regarding the first appeal (No. 15-6740), the court dismisses it as moot because the district court vacated the challenged order. For the second appeal (No. 15-7179), the court dismisses it because the district court's order of dismissal without prejudice was interlocutory and not appealable, as Jack could refile his suit with a particularized complaint. The court therefore dismisses both appeals.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    4 views3 pages

    James L. Jack v. Michael L. Chapman, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes two appeals by James L. Jack of orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Regarding the first appeal (No. 15-6740), the court dismisses it as moot because the district court vacated the challenged order. For the second appeal (No. 15-7179), the court dismisses it because the district court's order of dismissal without prejudice was interlocutory and not appealable, as Jack could refile his suit with a particularized complaint. The court therefore dismisses both appeals.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 15-6740

    JAMES L. JACK,
    Plaintiff Appellant,
    v.
    MICHAEL L. CHAPMAN, Sheriff, LCSO;
    Deputy, LCSO; LIMA, Deputy, LCSO,

    SEAN

    DIKEMAN,

    #2233,

    DIKEMAN,

    #2233,

    Defendants - Appellees.

    No. 15-7179

    JAMES L. JACK,
    Plaintiff Appellant,
    v.
    MICHAEL L. CHAPMAN, Sheriff, LCSO;
    Deputy, LCSO; LIMA, Deputy, LCSO,

    SEAN

    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    James R. Spencer, Senior
    District Judge. (3:14-cv-00390-JRS-RCY)

    Submitted:

    October 20, 2015

    Decided:

    October 22, 2015

    Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    James L. Jack, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    James
    dismissing

    L.
    his

    Jack

    appeals

    42

    U.S.C.

    from

    the

    1983

    district

    (2012)

    courts

    complaint

    prejudice for failure to particularize his complaint.

    orders
    without

    Regarding

    No. 15-6740, after Jack filed his notice of appeal, the district
    court vacated the order to afford Jack extra time to respond.
    As the challenged order is no longer in force, we dismiss the
    appeal as moot.

    Turning to No. 15-7179, because Jack may refile

    his suit in district court with a particularized complaint, the


    dismissal order is interlocutory and not appealable.

    See Domino

    Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064,


    1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).
    well.
    legal
    before

    Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and


    contentions
    this

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like