Renee Norman v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ( 2019 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-1311
RENEE H. NORMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:17-cv-00585-HEH)
Submitted: December 26, 2018 Decided: January 28, 2019
Before KING, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Renee H. Norman, Appellant Pro Se. Terry Catherine Frank, Benjamin Alexander Wills,
KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Renee H. Norman seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her civil
complaint against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., in part with prejudice and in part without
prejudice. Although not raised by the parties, we have “an independent obligation to
verify the existence of appellate jurisdiction.” Campbell-McCormick, Inc. v. Oliver, 874
F.3d 390, 394 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). 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 Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). “An order dismissing
a complaint without prejudice is not an appealable final order under § 1291 if the plaintiff
could save [her] action by merely amending [her] complaint.” Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal
Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Although the district court denied several of Norman’s claims with prejudice for
failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, it denied the remainder of her
claims without prejudice for failure to plead sufficient facts. See Goode, 807 F.3d at 624
(holding that this Court lacks jurisdiction over appeals “in cases in which the district
court granted a motion to dismiss for failure to plead sufficient facts in the complaint . . .
because the plaintiff could amend the complaint to cure the pleading deficiency”).
Because an amendment could potentially cure the pleading defects as to these claims, the
district court’s order is not a final order appealable under § 1291, and we lack jurisdiction
over the appeal.
2
Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, dismiss the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction, and remand to the district court with instructions to allow Norman to
amend her complaint. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED & REMANDED
3