The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
09-7015•David W. Williams v. Department of Corrections; Indian Creek Correctional Center
09-7015Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 8, 2009
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7015
DAVID W. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; INDIAN CREEK CORRECTIONAL CENTER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:09-cv-00283-GBL-TRJ)
Submitted: September 29, 2009 Decided: October 8, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David W. Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
David W. Williams seeks to appeal the district court's
order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006)
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, 545-
46 (1949). Because Williams’ complaint lacked specificity and
offered incomplete proof that Williams had exhausted his
administrative remedies, and because these deficiencies may be
remedied by the filing of a complaint that articulates adequate
facts, we conclude that the order Williams 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, 1066 (4th Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. We deny Williams’ motion for appointment of
counsel. 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 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.