Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Sindram v. Zacker, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    14 views3 pages
    This document summarizes three appeals by Michael Sindram of district court orders related to lawsuits he filed. The appeals court affirmed two of the district court orders that denied Sindram's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and denied his motion for clarification. The third appeal was dismissed because the district court's dismissal of Sindram's complaint without prejudice was not a final appealable order since he could refile the complaint to address deficiencies.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-11-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-1699

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes three appeals by Michael Sindram of district court orders related to lawsuits he filed. The appeals court affirmed two of the district court orders that denied Sindram's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and denied his motion for clarification. The third appeal was dismissed because the district court's dismissal of Sindram's complaint without prejudice was not a final appealable order since he could refile the complaint to address deficiencies.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    14 views3 pages

    Sindram v. Zacker, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes three appeals by Michael Sindram of district court orders related to lawsuits he filed. The appeals court affirmed two of the district court orders that denied Sindram's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and denied his motion for clarification. The third appeal was dismissed because the district court's dismissal of Sindram's complaint without prejudice was not a final appealable order since he could refile the complaint to address deficiencies.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 05-1699

    MICHAEL J. SINDRAM,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    JOHN ZACKER,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    No. 05-1910

    MICHAEL J. SINDRAM,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    JOHN ZACKER,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    No. 05-2016

    MICHAEL J. SINDRAM,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus

    JOHN ZACKER; DAVID H. HYDE; SUSAN SIGAFOOS,


    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA05-1660-8-PJM; CA-05-1978-PJM)

    Submitted:

    November 17, 2005

    Decided:

    November 22, 2005

    Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

    Nos. 05-1699 and 05-1910, affirmed; No. 05-2016, dismissed by


    unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Michael J. Sindram, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    - 2 -

    PER CURIAM:
    In these consolidated appeals, Michael J. Sindram appeals
    district court orders denying his motion to proceed in forma
    pauperis, denying his motion for clarification and modification and
    dismissing without prejudice his complaint for failing to state a
    claim. We have reviewed the records and the district court orders.
    With respect to Appeal Nos. 05-1699 and 05-1910, we affirm on the
    reasoning of the district court. See Sindram v. Zacker, No. CA-051660-8-PJM (D. Md. June 20, 2005 & July 6, 2005).

    With respect to

    Appeal No. 05-2016, the court dismissed without prejudice Sindrams


    complaint and instructed Sindram as to the deficiencies in the
    complaint and how they may be cured.

    Because Sindram may refile

    his

    is

    complaint,

    the

    dismissal

    order

    interlocutory

    and

    not

    appealable. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union


    392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we affirm
    Nos. 05-1699 and 05-1910 and dismiss No. 05-2016.

    We grant

    Sindrams motions to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.

    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.
    Nos. 05-1699/05-1910 - AFFIRMED
    No. 05-2016 - DISMISSED

    - 3 -

    You might also like