Sindram v. Raker , 119 F. App'x 528 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-2200
    MICHAEL J. SINDRAM,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    IRMA S. RAKER; G. R. HOVEY JOHNSON; EL AMIN;
    THOMAS J. LOVE; THURMAN RHODES,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    No. 04-2210
    MICHAEL J. SINDRAM,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    IRMA S. RAKER; EL AMIN; THOMAS J.         LOVE;
    THURMAN RHODES; G. R. HOVEY JOHNSON,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    No. 04-2211
    MICHAEL J. SINDRAM,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    COLUMBIA UNION COLLEGE; RANDAL WISBEY; EARLENE
    SIMMONS; VINCENT DUNBAR; DONNA POLK; PETER
    FEENEY; DOUGLAS F. GANSLER; ROBERT MELLADO;
    ODESSA SHANNON; MICHAEL DENNIS,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-
    04-1790-PJM; CA-04-1898-PJM)
    Submitted:   November 22, 2004            Decided:   January 18, 2005
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 dismissing his complaint against several
    state court judges for failing to state a claim and dismissing
    without prejudice for failing to state a claim his complaint
    against Columbia Union College and several individuals.              Sindram
    also appeals orders denying his motions for reconsideration filed
    in each case.      With respect to Nos. 04-2200 and 04-2210, in which
    Sindram appeals the district court order dismissing his complaint
    against    state     court   judges    and   denying   his    motion    for
    reconsideration, we have reviewed the record and the district court
    orders and dismiss the appeals as frivolous on the reasoning of the
    district court.     See Sindram v. Raker, No. CA-04-1790-PJM (D. Md.
    filed July 19, 2004; entered July 20, 2004, and September 21,
    2004).
    In    No.   04-2211,    Sindram   appeals   district    court   orders
    dismissing without prejudice his complaint under 
    42 U.S.C. § 1981
    (2000) and denying his motion for reconsideration.           The district
    court’s dismissal without prejudice is not appealable.          See Domino
    Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 
    10 F.3d 1064
    , 1066-67
    (4th Cir. 1993).      A dismissal without prejudice is a final order
    only if no amendment could cure the defects in the complaint.           
    Id. at 1067
    .   In ascertaining whether a dismissal without prejudice is
    reviewable in this court, we must determine “whether the plaintiff
    - 3 -
    could save his action by merely amending his complaint.” 
    Id.
    Because Sindram may cure the defect in his complaint by filing a
    supplemental or amended complaint in accordance with the district
    court’s order, the dismissal order is not appealable. Accordingly,
    we dismiss the appeal from both orders.
    We dismiss as frivolous Nos. 04-2200 and 04-2210.           We
    dismiss No. 04-2211 under the rule announced in Domino Sugar.          We
    deny Sindram’s motion for appointment of counsel filed in No. 04-
    2200 and the motion to deconsolidate the cases.         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
    - 4 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-2200, 04-2210, 04-2211

Citation Numbers: 119 F. App'x 528

Judges: Gregory, Michael, Per Curiam, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 1/18/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023