Robbins v. Virginia Department of Aging & Rehabilitative Services , 590 F. App'x 271 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-1545
    IVA ROBBINS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF AGING AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES;
    JIM ROTHROCK, Commissioner,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.   Liam O’Grady, District
    Judge. (1:14-cv-00626-LO-TCB)
    Submitted:   January 22, 2015             Decided:   January 26, 2015
    Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Iva Robbins, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Brown Beckner, OFFICE OF
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Iva   Robbins   appeals       the   district     court’s    orders
    denying,   without   prejudice,   her      motion     for   appointment     of
    counsel, denying her motion for a temporary restraining order,
    and   dismissing,    without   prejudice, *     her    complaint       seeking
    injunctive relief against Defendants.            Limiting our review to
    the issues raised in Robbins’ informal brief, see 4th Cir. R.
    34(b), we affirm the district court’s orders.               See Robbins v.
    Va. Dep’t of Aging & Rehab. Servs., No. 1:14-cv-00626-LO-TCB
    (E.D. Va. May 30, 2014; June 6, 2014).              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.
    AFFIRMED
    *
    Generally, dismissals without prejudice are not appealable.
    See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 
    10 F.3d 1064
    , 1066 (4th Cir. 1993).       However, a dismissal without
    prejudice could be final if no amendment to the complaint could
    cure the defects in the plaintiff’s case.    See 
    id. at 1066-67
    .
    We find that the district court’s order is a final, appealable
    order because the defects in Robbins’ complaint—failure to
    exhaust administrative remedies—must be cured by something more
    than an amendment to the complaint. See 
    id.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-1545

Citation Numbers: 590 F. App'x 271

Judges: Shedd, Keenan, Diaz

Filed Date: 1/26/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024