Raymond V. Bethel, Jr. v. Department of State Police Sex Offender Registry

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7375
RAYMOND V. BETHEL, JR.,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 14-7377
RAYMOND V. BETHEL, JR.,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:14-cv-00170-HEH-MHL; 3:14-cv-00183-HEH-MHL)
Submitted: November 18, 2014 Decided: November 21, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Raymond V. Bethel, Jr,. Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Raymond V. Bethel, Jr.,
seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing without
prejudice his related actions filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2012). This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and
collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541,
545-46 (1949). The orders Bethel seeks to appeal are neither
final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders,
as Bethel may be able to amend his respective complaints to cure
the pleading deficiency identified by the district court.* See
Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d
1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we deny Bethel’s
motions to amend and dismiss the appeals 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
* Insofar as Bethel’s motions to amend, filed in this court,
seek to amend his § 1983 complaints, we note that such amendment
must be sought in the district court. We express no opinion as
to the effectiveness or propriety of his proposed amendments.

-- 3 of 3 --