Warren Giddings v. Montgomery County Police

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit January 25, 2022

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7114 Doc: 16 Filed: 01/25/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

No. 21-7114

Plaintiff - Appellant,

MONTGOMERY COUNTY POLICE; MONTGOMERY COUNTY MARYLAND; FOX NEWS STAFF; ROCKVILLE MARYLAND,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Stephanie A. Gallagher, District Judge. (1:21-cv-01360-SAG)

Submitted: January 20, 2022 Decided: January 25, 2022

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Warren Matthew Giddings, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7114 Doc: 16 Filed: 01/25/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

Warren Matthew Giddings seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing

without prejudice his

42 U.S.C. § 1983

complaint for failure to comply with the court’s

prior order directing him to amend his complaint. This court may exercise jurisdiction only

over final orders,

28 U.S.C. § 1291

, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders,

28 U.S.C. § 1292

; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,

337 U.S. 541, 545-46

(1949). “[D]ismissals without prejudice generally are not appealable unless the

grounds for dismissal clearly indicate that no amendment in the complaint could cure the

defects in the plaintiff’s case.” Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC,

959 F.3d 605

, 610 (4th Cir. 2020)

(internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied,

141 S. Ct. 1376

(2021). Because the

district court dismissed Giddings’ complaint without prejudice and Giddings could

possibly cure the pleading deficiencies identified by the court by filing an amended

complaint, the court’s order is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or

collateral order.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand to the district

court with instructions to allow Giddings to amend the complaint. * 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.

* In his informal brief and notice of appeal, Giddings claims that he never received the district court’s order directing him to amend his complaint.