Parker v. Higgs, 4th Cir. (2009)

Download as pdf
Download as pdf
You are on page 1of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7160

PATRICK O. PARKER, SR.,


Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOSEPH A. HIGGS, JR., Superintendent; L. WALLACE, Ombudsman;
R. WILSON, Mr., Deputy Superintendent; SIMPSON, Sgt.,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:06-cv-00663-REP)

Submitted:

December 15, 2009

Decided:

December 17, 2009

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam


opinion.

Patrick O. Parker, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Alexander Francuzenko,


COOK, KITTS & FRANCUZENKO, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
Patrick O. Parker, Sr., appeals a district court order
dismissing

his

interference

civil

with

his

rights
right

complaint

to

concerning

worship.

Insofar

alleged

as

Parker

appeals the order granting summary judgment to Simpson, we have


reviewed the record and the district courts order and affirm
See Parker v.

for the reasons cited by the district court.

Higgs, No. 3:06-cv-00663-REP (E.D. Va. June 4, 2009).


as

Parker

without

appeals

from

prejudice

his

the

district

complaint

court

Insofar

order

dismissing

the

remaining

against

Defendants, a dismissal without prejudice is not reviewable by


this court unless the reasons stated for the dismissal clearly
disclose

that

defects.

no

amendment

to

the

complaint

could

cure

its

See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union

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

Because Parker

could cure the defect in the complaint, we dismiss in part the


appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

You might also like