Eddie Golson v. Detective James Anderson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6204
EDDIE C. GOLSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DETECTIVE JAMES B. ANDERSON, of the Lexington County Sheriff’s
Department; LEXINGTON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, Individually and
in their official capacities,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
JAMES R. METTS; BRIAN P. STERLING; STEPHANIE WILLIS; MARY ANN
E. SHEHA; NANCY J. SKRABA; ROBERT L. SINGLETON;
BRIAN CURRENCE,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (3:15-cv-04319-MBS)
Submitted: June 25, 2018 Decided: July 6, 2018
Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eddie C. Golson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Eddie C. Golson appeals from the district court’s order adopting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his amended
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012), confining his appeal to the portion of the order
dismissing his claim for monetary damages pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,
486-87 (1994) (holding that a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit for monetary damages is barred if
prevailing in the action would necessarily require the plaintiff to prove the unlawfulness
of his conviction or imprisonment). * We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Golson v.
Anderson, No. 3:15-cv-04319-MBS (D.S.C. Feb. 5, 2018). 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
*
We conclude that, although the complaint was dismissed without prejudice, the
district court’s order qualifies as a final, appealable order because Golson could not
simply amend the complaint to cure the defect identified. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal
Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 629-30 (4th Cir. 2015) (holding that dismissal without
prejudice is not appealable unless “the district court’s grounds for dismissal clearly
indicate that no amendment could cure the complaint’s defects”).
3