Henry Sanders v. Midland Funding LLC ( 2013 )

Certiorari dismissed by Supreme Court, October 15, 2013
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-2385
HENRY T. SANDERS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
MIDLAND FUNDING LLC; WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District
Judge. (8:12-cv-02518-DKC)
Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: March 28, 2013
Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henry T. Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Lauren M. Burnette, MARSHALL
DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Henry T. Sanders seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his complaint without prejudice for failure to
comply with the court’s order to file an amended complaint
providing a factual basis and stating the relief sought. This
court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28
U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral
orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);
Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545–46
(1949). The order Sanders seeks to appeal is neither a final
order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order
because it is possible for him to cure the pleading deficiencies
in the complaint that were identified by the district court.
See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d
1064, 1066–67 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that a dismissal without
prejudice is not appealable unless it is clear that no amendment
to the complaint “could cure the defects in the plaintiff’s
case” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Chao v.
Rivendell Woods, Inc., 415 F.3d 342, 345 (4th Cir. 2005)
(explaining that, under Domino Sugar, this court must “examine
the appealability of a dismissal without prejudice based on the
specific facts of the case in order to guard against piecemeal
litigation and repetitive appeals”). Accordingly, we deny leave
to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for lack of
2
jurisdiction. We grant Sanders’ motion to file a reply brief.
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
3