Harper v. United Services Automobile Association

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-2395
VERA C. HARPER, on her behalf and as personal
representative of the Estate of Wilson Clark Harper,
Deceased; DAVID A. HARPER,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, a/k/a USAA; STEVE
LEE; J. LOUIS BLANCO; STEPHEN HORVATH; JANICE BUCHMAN; JUDGE
ROUSCH, Circuit Court Judge; JUDGE KEITH, Circuit Court
Judge; JUDGE WOLDRIDGE; THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA; DOES
1-50,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:08-cv-00478-LO-TRJ)
Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 20, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Vera C. Harper, David A. Harper, Appellants Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Vera C. Harper and David A. Harper appeal the district
court’s order dismissing without prejudice their civil complaint
and allowing them to file an amended complaint within sixty days
of the entry of the court’s order. 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). An order granting
leave to amend is interlocutory as it leaves the case open for
either amendment of the complaint or entry of final judgment.
Jung v. K. & D. Mining Co., 356 U.S. 335, 337 (1958) (quoting
Missouri & Kansas Interurban Ry. Co. v. City of Olathe, 222 U.S.
185, 186 (1911)); see also Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers
Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993) (a
dismissal without prejudice is not generally appealable).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. We further deny Appellants’ motions to supplement
the record on appeal and for oral argument. 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