Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

60 F.3d 822

Docket 95-6401

Howell v. Eugene Short

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted May 18, 1995. Decided June 29, 1995.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Domino Sugar Corporation v. Sugar Workers Local Union of United Food and Commercial Workers International Union · In Re: Herman E. Harston

Opinion by Per Curiam ·

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Richard Lester Howell, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

W.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) 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 could be final if "no amendment [to the complaint] could cure defects in the plaintiff's case." Id. at 1067. 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 the complaint." Id. at 1066-67.

¶2

Because Appellant possibly could have saved his action by amending his complaint, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because we find the order is not appealable. 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

/60/f3d/822 · .json · Public domain