Joseph Lagana v. BOBBY SHEARIN, Warden

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6670
JOSEPH LAGANA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BOBBY SHEARIN, Warden; DR. COLLIN OHEY; DR. AVA JOUBEIT; PA
GREG FLUIY; JANICE GILLMORE; ESTATE BARBARA NEWLON; RN BILL
BEEMON; RN MONICA METHERY; RN KRISSY CORTEZ; RN CARLA BUCK;
RN DAWN HAWK; LPN KELLY; LPN VICKIE; LPN MICHELLE; LT WILT;
SGT ZAIG; LT M. YACENECH; CHRISTINE B.; JANETTE SIMMONS;
CHAPLAIN LAMP; FRANK BISHOP, Warden; PA LUM; RN MARTIN; J.
MICHAEL STOUFFER, Commission; SCOTT OAKLEY; SHARON BAUCOM;
DR. GETACHEW; PATRICIA DOVE; RHONDA SKIDMORE; LPN JANE; PA
GREG FLURY; LPN KIM; DR. ODIFIE; CORIZON, INC.; WEXFORD
HEALTH; CMS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:14-cv-00970-PJM)
Submitted: July 29, 2014 Decided: August 1, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Lagana, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Lagana appeals the district court’s order
dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)
complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8(a)(2).∗ 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (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). Because Lagana
may proceed with his timely claims by amending his complaint to
provide a “short and plain” statement of the facts showing his
entitlement to relief, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the order he
seeks to appeal is neither a final order with respect to those
claims 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
∗ Lagana does not contest on appeal the district court’s
dismissal with prejudice of his claims that were barred by the
statute of limitations.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --