U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2017

Sundari Prasad v. Viviene Cheek

Sundari Prasad v. Viviene Cheek
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided December 28, 2017 · Duncan, Hamilton, Per Curiam, Wilkinson
707 F. App'x 209

Sundari Prasad v. Viviene Cheek

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sundari Karma Prasad seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action for failure to comply with the magistrate judge’s order to submit a second particularized complaint. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by supplementing the complaint as directed, we conclude that the order Prasad seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an ap-pealable interlocutory or collateral order. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 892, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). 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 materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

*

We do not remand this matter to the district court, though, because the court previously afforded Prasad the chance to further partial-larize and amend her complaint, and she failed to do so, Cf. Goode, 807 F.3d at 629-30.

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