Greenway v. Origen Financial Inc. ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1595
PATRICIA LEE GREENWAY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ORIGEN FINANCIAL INC, d/b/a Dynex Financial
Inc; JEFFREY L. SILVER; IVAN J. TONEY; THE
HOUSING BOARD; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT; IVAN SOUTHERLAND; MIKE
ANDERSON; PHILLIP D. MAYNARD; SUPREME COURT OF
SOUTH CAROLINA, Disciplinary Course,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
(CA-02-1617)
Submitted: July 24, 2003 Decided: July 29, 2003
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Patricia Lee Greenway, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Patricia Lee Greenway appeals from the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing
her complaint without prejudice. The district court’s dismissal
without prejudice is not appealable. See Domino Sugar Corp. v.
Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.
1993). A dismissal without prejudice is a final order only if “‘no
amendment [in the complaint] could cure the defects in the
plaintiff’s case.’” Id. at 1067 (quoting Coniston Corp. v. Village
of Hoffman Estates, 844 F.2d 461, 463 (7th Cir. 1988)). In
ascertaining whether a dismissal without prejudice is reviewable in
this court, the court must determine “whether the plaintiff could
save [her] action by merely amending [her] complaint.” Domino
Sugar, 10 F.3d at 1066-67. In this case, Greenway may move in the
district court to reopen her case and to file an amended complaint
specifically alleging facts sufficient to state a claim within the
district court’s jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (2000).
Therefore, the dismissal order is not appealable. 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
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2