George Alexander Yarid v. Layton Harman

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1048
GEORGE ALEXANDER YARID,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LAYTON HARMAN; ROBERT ROONEY; JOHN LUCAS; AL HORFORD; ED
DAVIS; BRODIE BRUCE; SCOTT HATRNELL; KURT DONALDSON; PAUL
WRIGHT; GORDAN FREEMAN; MIKE DANNER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:12-cv-00237-JRS)
Submitted: April 25, 2013 Decided: April 29, 2013
Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George Alexander Yarid, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
George Alexander Yarid appeals the district court’s
order dismissing his complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). 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, 545–47 (1949). Because the district court found
Yarid’s particularized complaint too vague and conclusory to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted, but allowed him
to amplify the factual and legal bases on which his claims rest
and refile his complaint, we conclude that the district court’s
order is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory
or collateral order. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local
Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066–67 (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 this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --