Ronald McClary v. Belquis Hopkins, No. 16-7063 (4th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7063 RONALD MCCLARY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BELQUIS HOPKINS, Lead Nurse; DAVID MITCHELL; ANTHONY SEARLES, Defendants – Appellees, and EAVES, Nurse, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:16-cv-00088-FDW) Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 22, 2016 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald McClary, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ronald McClary seeks to appeal the district court's order and judgment dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. 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, 545-47 (1949). Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by filing an amended complaint, we conclude that the order McClary seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). jurisdiction Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of and remand the case to the district instructions to allow McClary to amend his complaint. F.3d at 630. court with Goode, 807 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 AND REMANDED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.