Opinion

Brown v. Town of Farmville

  • 37 F. App'x 710
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
Jun 24, 2002
Status
Unpublished
On the bench
Niemeyer, Michael, Motz
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 28.2%

The opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6337

JAMES A. BROWN, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

TOWN OF FARMVILLE, VIRGINIA; PRINCE EDWARD

COUNTY; PIEDMONT REGIONAL JAIL; LEWIS W.

BARLOW, Superintendent for Piedmont Regional

Jail; EDWARD GORDON, M.D.; EDWARD CHAFFIN,

R.N.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (CA-01-140-3)

Submitted: May 21, 2002 Decided: June 24, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James A. Brown, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

James A. Brown, Jr., appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing

without prejudice his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) action.

The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the complaint because

Brown failed to indicate any named Defendant was aware he did not

timely receive his medication or was deliberately indifferent to

that fact and Brown did not allege specific facts to support his

bare assertion of retaliation. The district court dismissed the

appeal without prejudice because Brown failed to timely object to

the magistrate judge’s report.

Because Brown may be able to proceed with this action by

amending his complaint to allege sufficient facts to state a claim,

the dismissal order is not final and thus is not subject to

appellate review. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local

Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).

We therefore dismiss the appeal. 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

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.