James L. Jack v. MICHAEL L. CHAPMAN, Sheriff, LCSO; SEAN DIKEMAN, 2233, Deputy, LCSO; LIMA, Deputy, LCSO

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6740
JAMES L. JACK,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL L. CHAPMAN, Sheriff, LCSO; SEAN DIKEMAN, #2233,
Deputy, LCSO; LIMA, Deputy, LCSO,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 15-7179
JAMES L. JACK,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL L. CHAPMAN, Sheriff, LCSO; SEAN DIKEMAN, #2233,
Deputy, LCSO; LIMA, Deputy, LCSO,
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

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
James L. Jack appeals from the district court’s orders
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint without
prejudice for failure to particularize his complaint. 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As the challenged order is no longer in force, we dismiss the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). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as
well. 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

-- 3 of 3 --