U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1998

McBride v. Rutherford

McBride v. Rutherford
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided November 3, 1998

McBride v. Rutherford

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.