Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Fulford-El v. Waters, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Errol Douglass Fulford-El's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The district court had dismissed the complaint without prejudice because Fulford-El failed to provide a short and plain statement of his claims as required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The appeals court found that because the defect could be cured by amending the complaint, the dismissal without prejudice was not a final appealable order. Therefore, the appeals court dismissed Fulford-El's appeal and denied his motion to transfer to another institution.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-08-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-6785

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Errol Douglass Fulford-El's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The district court had dismissed the complaint without prejudice because Fulford-El failed to provide a short and plain statement of his claims as required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The appeals court found that because the defect could be cured by amending the complaint, the dismissal without prejudice was not a final appealable order. Therefore, the appeals court dismissed Fulford-El's appeal and denied his motion to transfer to another institution.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    7 views2 pages

    Fulford-El v. Waters, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Errol Douglass Fulford-El's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The district court had dismissed the complaint without prejudice because Fulford-El failed to provide a short and plain statement of his claims as required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The appeals court found that because the defect could be cured by amending the complaint, the dismissal without prejudice was not a final appealable order. Therefore, the appeals court dismissed Fulford-El's appeal and denied his motion to transfer to another institution.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 03-6785

    ERROL DOUGLASS FULFORD-EL,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    LLOYD L. WATERS, Warden; JAMES YONKER;
    JACQUELEN SHANK; CAPTAIN SOTALMYER; J. LYNCH;
    JAMES PEGUESS, Warden; SARGEANT MYERS; K. O.
    WILLIAMS,
    Lieutenant;
    CLARK
    JENTY,
    Correctional Officer II; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
    COOPER;
    SARGEANT
    HANCOCK;
    GARY
    FOREMAN,
    Lieutenant; WILLIAM W. SONDERVAN; MARVIN N.
    ROBBINS,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.
    (CA-03-1254-WDQ)

    Submitted:

    August 14, 2003

    Decided:

    August 21, 2003

    Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Errol Douglass Fulford-El, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Errol Douglass Fulford-El appeals the district courts order
    dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint without prejudice.
    The district court dismissed the complaint because Fulford-El did
    not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, requiring a short and plain
    statement of his claims.

    Because Fulford-El may cure this defect

    by amending his complaint, the dismissal without prejudice is not


    a final, appealable order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers
    Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).
    therefore dismiss the appeal.*

    We

    We deny Fulford-Els motion for

    transfer to another institution.

    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

    To the extent Fulford-El attempts to appeal orders from


    Fulford-El v. Robbins, No. CA-03-1200-1, this appeal was separately
    docketed, and Fulford-El filed a motion to dismiss, which was
    granted. Therefore, we do not consider those orders.
    2

    You might also like