Pamela Gordon v. James Madison University ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2218
PAMELA J. GORDON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JAMES MADISON UNIVERSITY, Virginia,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Michael F. Urbanski,
District Judge. (5:12-cv-00124-MFU-BWC)
Submitted: January 21, 2014 Decided: January 23, 2014
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Pamela J. Gordon, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Nicholas Regnery,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pamela J. Gordon seeks to appeal the district court’s
order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and
dismissing without prejudice her complaint alleging violations
of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. This court may
exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291
(2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 28
U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial
Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949). The order
Gordon seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order because it is
possible for her to cure the pleading deficiencies in the
complaint that were identified by the district court. Domino
Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064,
1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that order dismissing complaint
without prejudice is final and appealable only if “no amendment
[in 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”).
2
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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3