Michael Hodges v. Rondelle Herman ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 20-1445
    MICHAEL HODGES,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    RONDELLE HERMAN, Judge; CAREY T., Agent DCSE; CRAIG M. BURSHEM,
    Director DCSE; TAWANA MONTAGUE, Payroll,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:19-cv-00953-HEH)
    Submitted: September 29, 2020                                 Decided: October 13, 2020
    Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Michael Hodges, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Michael Hodges seeks to appeal the district court’s memorandum order dismissing
    his complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C.
    § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C.
    § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P.
    54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 
    337 U.S. 541
    , 545-46 (1949). “An order
    dismissing a complaint without prejudice is not an appealable final order under § 1291 if
    ‘the plaintiff could save [the] action by merely amending [the] complaint.’” Goode v. Cent.
    Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 
    807 F.3d 619
    , 623 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Domino Sugar
    Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 
    10 F.3d 1064
    , 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993)). Because
    the grounds for the district court’s dismissal “did not clearly preclude amendment,”
    id. at 630,
    we conclude that the court’s order is neither a final order nor an appealable
    interlocutory or collateral order.
    Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand to the district
    court with instructions to allow Hodges to amend the complaint.
    Id. 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 AND REMANDED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-1445

Filed Date: 10/13/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/13/2020