Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Turner v. Powell, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Russell Turner's appeal of two district court cases without prejudice. The district court had dismissed Turner's two 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaints against prison officials without prejudice. The appeals court found that dismissals without prejudice are generally not appealable, as the plaintiff could potentially cure defects in the complaint by amending it. As the district court left open the possibility that Turner could amend his complaints, the dismissal orders were not final, and the appeals court therefore lacked jurisdiction over the appeals and dismissed them.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-05-15 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-7852

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Russell Turner's appeal of two district court cases without prejudice. The district court had dismissed Turner's two 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaints against prison officials without prejudice. The appeals court found that dismissals without prejudice are generally not appealable, as the plaintiff could potentially cure defects in the complaint by amending it. As the district court left open the possibility that Turner could amend his complaints, the dismissal orders were not final, and the appeals court therefore lacked jurisdiction over the appeals and dismissed them.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    0 views3 pages

    Turner v. Powell, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Russell Turner's appeal of two district court cases without prejudice. The district court had dismissed Turner's two 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaints against prison officials without prejudice. The appeals court found that dismissals without prejudice are generally not appealable, as the plaintiff could potentially cure defects in the complaint by amending it. As the district court left open the possibility that Turner could amend his complaints, the dismissal orders were not final, and the appeals court therefore lacked jurisdiction over the appeals and dismissed them.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 97-7852

    RUSSELL TURNER,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    H. R. POWELL, Warden,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    No. 97-7853

    RUSSELL TURNER,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    JOHN HOLLAND, Doctor,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
    District Judge. (CA-97-26-3, CA-97-556-3)

    Submitted:

    April 29, 1998

    Decided:

    May 15, 1998

    Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Russell Turner, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals from the district court's orders dismissing
    without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1994) complaints. The district court's dismissals without prejudice are 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.
    Because the district court's opinions leave open the possibility that Appellant could amend his complaints to assert some
    claims, the dismissal orders are not appealable. Accordingly, we
    dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction. 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

    You might also like