State of NC v. McGuirt ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1891
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; UNION COUNTY; KYLE
MATHIS, by and through his next friends, C.
Timothy Mathis and Shannon Mathis; QUADE
MATHIS, by and through his next friends, C.
Timothy Mathis and Shannon Mathis; BOYCE
JACKSON, by and through his next friend, Jodi
Livengood; LAUREN LIVENGOOD, by and through
her next friend, Eric Livengood; KAYLA
BARNETTE, by and through her next friends
Michelle Barnette and Michael Barnette; C.
TIMOTHY MATHIS; SHANNON MATHIS; CHARLES
MATHIS; JEFFREY MATHIS,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
WILLIAM FRANKLIN MCGUIRT, Sheriff of Union
County, in his individual and official
capacities; OLD REPUBLIC SURETY COMPANY, as
surety; HARLEYSVILLE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
as surety; TED KEZIAH; HARRY FUSS; RANDY COX;
GREG STEWART; LARK PLYLER, JR.; STEVE SIMPSON;
DAIRY SIMPSON; ROGER LANEY; BILL TUCKER; SHANE
MCKENZIE; JEFF WEBB; E. M. GOODMAN; DAVID
LINTO; DEXTER WILSON; KAREN CROOK; KEVIN
JAMES; BILL SHAW; TOMMY ALLEN; RYAN HUNKE;
MIKE EASLY; W. A. GAGNON; CHAD COPPAGE; BRIAN
HELMS; R. TOMBERLIN; J. KIRKLEY; TOMMY GALLIS;
MICHAEL COPPAGE; EDWARD HENDRICKS; JOHN
INGANI, Deputy Sheriffs, in their individual
and official capacities; DANNY THOMPSON; JOHN
DOES; JOYCE THOMAS,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
T. PRICE,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CA-02-353-3)
Submitted: December 17, 2003 Decided: February 2, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aaron E. Michel, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Edward L. Eatman, Jr., Kevin Collins, HEDRICK, EATMAN, GARDNER &
KINCHELOE, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Appellants appeal the district court’s order dismissing
their complaint without prejudice. The district court dismissed
the complaint, because it failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8,
12, in that the complaint was both too lengthy and too vague.
Because Appellants may cure these defects by amending the
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). We therefore
dismiss the appeal. 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
- 3 -