Carla Lewis v. The Volo Townhouse ( 2021 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-2058
CARLA T. LEWIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE VOLO TOWNHOUSE, trading as Antonio Volo,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:20-cv-00592-HEH)
Submitted: April 27, 2021 Decided: April 30, 2020
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carla T. Lewis, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carla T. Lewis seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her civil
complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 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) (quoting Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Loc. Union 392,
10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1993)). Because the district court recognized the possibility
that amendment could cure the defects in Lewis’ complaint, id. at 610-11, we conclude that
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 Lewis to amend the complaint. We deny Lewis’ “motion
to stable probate.” 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 AND REMANDED
2