Nicole Bridgewater v. 5800 Seward, LLC ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-1810
NICOLE RUBY BRIDGEWATER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
5800 SEWARD, LLC, a/k/a D&B Hoovers, a/k/a Dun & Bradstreet,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:19-cv-00159-BO)
Submitted: September 29, 2020 Decided: November 10, 2020
Before DIAZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nicole Ruby Bridgewater, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nicole Ruby Bridgewater seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her
complaint without prejudice. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders,
28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed.
R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949).
“[D]ismissals without prejudice generally are not appealable ‘unless the grounds for
dismissal clearly indicate that no amendment in the complaint could cure the defects in the
plaintiff’s case.’” Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC, 959 F.3d 605, 610 (4th Cir. 2020) (quoting
Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Loc. Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir.
1993)). Here, the district court did not expressly direct the clerk’s office to dismiss the
complaint, see id., though the clerk’s office did close the case. And, although the
magistrate judge directed Bridgewater to file a more particularized complaint before
issuing its recommendation, the district court judge did not explicitly grant Bridgewater an
opportunity to amend her complaint before dismissing. Id. at 611. Thus, we conclude that
the court’s order is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We direct on remand
that the district court, in its discretion, either afford Bridgewater an opportunity to amend
or dismiss the complaint with prejudice, thereby rendering the dismissal order a final,
appealable judgment.
2
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 AND REMANDED
3