Mallory v. Virginia Parole Board , 358 F. App'x 432 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-7458
    CALVIN RUFFIN MALLORY,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
    Defendants – Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.   James R. Spencer, Chief
    District Judge. (3:09-cv-00466-JRS)
    Submitted:    December 17, 2009            Decided:   December 29, 2009
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Calvin Ruffin Mallory, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Calvin     Ruffin   Mallory      seeks    to    appeal    the   district
    court’s dismissal of his complaint without prejudice because he
    failed    to     comply    with    the   district     court’s     October      4,   2002,
    order enjoining him from filing pleadings that do not comport
    with certain requirements, such as legibility and submission on
    the proper forms.
    Generally, a district court’s dismissal of a complaint
    without prejudice is not appealable.                    See Domino Sugar Corp. v.
    Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 
    10 F.3d 1064
    , 1066-67 (4th Cir.
    1993) (holding that “a plaintiff may not appeal the dismissal of
    his complaint without prejudice unless the grounds for dismissal
    clearly indicate that no amendment [in the complaint] could cure
    the defects in the plaintiff’s case”) (alteration in original)
    (internal quotation marks omitted).                  However, “if the grounds of
    the   dismissal      make    clear       that   no   amendment        could    cure   the
    defects    in     the     plaintiff's      case,     the      order   dismissing      the
    complaint is final in fact and [appellate jurisdiction exists].”
    
    Id. at 1066
     (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks
    omitted).
    In this case, Mallory may be able to save his action
    by amending his complaint to comply with the district court’s
    October     4,    2002,     order.         Therefore,      the    district      court’s
    2
    dismissal of Mallory’s complaint without prejudice is not an
    appealable final order.      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   the   court   and   argument   would   not    air   the
    decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-7458

Citation Numbers: 358 F. App'x 432

Judges: Wilkinson, Niemeyer, Agee

Filed Date: 12/29/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024