McBride v. Rutherford ( 1998 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 97-7805
    WILLIE MORRIS MCBRIDE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    WILLIAM F. RUTHERFORD, Judge; MORRIS B.
    GUTTERMAN, Judge; LYDIA CALVERT TAYLOR, Judge;
    CHARLES D. GRIFFITH, JR.; NORMAN A. THOMAS;
    THOMAS C. DANIEL,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior
    District Judge. (CA-97-430)
    Submitted:   October 20, 1998             Decided:   November 3, 1998
    Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Willie Morris McBride, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Willie Morris McBride appeals from the district court’s order
    dismissing without prejudice his 
    42 U.S.C.A. § 1983
     (West Supp.
    1998) complaint. 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 [in the
    complaint] could cure the defects in the plaintiff’s case.’” 
    Id. at 1067
     (quoting Coniston Corp. v. Village of Hoffman Estates, 
    844 F.2d 461
    , 463 (7th Cir. 1988)). In ascertaining whether a dismissal
    without prejudice is reviewable in this court, the court must
    determine “whether the plaintiff could save his action by merely
    amending his complaint.” Domino Sugar, 
    10 F.3d at 1066-67
    . In this
    case, McBride may move in the district court to reopen his case and
    to file an amended complaint specifically alleging facts sufficient
    to state a claim under 
    42 U.S.C.A. § 1983
    . Therefore, the dismissal
    order is not appealable. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for
    lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the
    facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
    rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
    process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 97-7805

Filed Date: 11/3/1998

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/31/2014