Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Carter v. Commonwealth of VA, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Leonard Carter regarding the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in district court without prejudice. The appeals court found that the district court's dismissal without prejudice was not a final, appealable order because Carter could refile his complaint once he has particularized it as directed by the district court. Therefore, the appeals court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denied Carter's various motions.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-07-27 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-6334

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Leonard Carter regarding the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in district court without prejudice. The appeals court found that the district court's dismissal without prejudice was not a final, appealable order because Carter could refile his complaint once he has particularized it as directed by the district court. Therefore, the appeals court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denied Carter's various motions.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    1 views2 pages

    Carter v. Commonwealth of VA, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Leonard Carter regarding the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in district court without prejudice. The appeals court found that the district court's dismissal without prejudice was not a final, appealable order because Carter could refile his complaint once he has particularized it as directed by the district court. Therefore, the appeals court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denied Carter's various motions.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 98-6334

    LEONARD CARTER,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; R. A. YOUNG, Regional Administrator; A. D. ROBINSON, Warden;
    KEITH DAVIS, AWP; B. L. JOHNSON, Treatment
    Programs Supervisor; UNKNOWN PINCHBECK, Counselor; C. W. FITZGERALD; V. L. FOSTER; A. W.
    GRAHAM, Counselor; SCOTT L. LAMBERT, Counselor; D. CHAFLIN, Counselor; J. WOODSON,
    Counselor,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
    District Judge. (CA-97-558)

    Submitted:

    July 2, 1998

    Decided:

    July 27, 1998

    Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Leonard Carter, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals from the district courts order dismissing
    without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1994) action. The district
    courts order of dismissal 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 final if no amendment
    [to the complaint] could cure defects in the plaintiffs case. Id.
    at 1067 (citation omitted). 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.
    Appellant could refile his complaint once he has particularized his complaint, as directed by the district court. We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because we find
    the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice is not appealable.
    We deny Carters motions for appointment of counsel, to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, for a jury trial, and for production of documents. 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