Robert Lewis v. Dennis Taylor ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1255
ROBERT B. LEWIS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
DENNIS T. TAYLOR, President; TRUCK DRIVERS, DRIVER HELPERS,
TAXICAB DRIVER, GARAGE EMPLOYEE, & AIRPORT EMPLOYEES LOCAL
UNION 355,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, District Judge.
(1:11-cv-03460-BEL)
Submitted: June 21, 2012 Decided: July 10, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert B. Lewis, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert B. Lewis seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing without prejudice Lewis’s complaint for failure
to allege a cognizable claim. 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 Lewis seeks
to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order because it is possible for
Lewis 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 dismiss the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3