Sindram v. Raker

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2200
MICHAEL J. SINDRAM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
IRMA S. RAKER; G. R. HOVEY JOHNSON; EL AMIN;
THOMAS J. LOVE; THURMAN RHODES,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 04-2210
MICHAEL J. SINDRAM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
IRMA S. RAKER; EL AMIN; THOMAS J. LOVE;
THURMAN RHODES; G. R. HOVEY JOHNSON,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 04-2211
MICHAEL J. SINDRAM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
COLUMBIA UNION COLLEGE; RANDAL WISBEY; EARLENE
SIMMONS; VINCENT DUNBAR; DONNA POLK; PETER
FEENEY; DOUGLAS F. GANSLER; ROBERT MELLADO;
ODESSA SHANNON; MICHAEL DENNIS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-
04-1790-PJM; CA-04-1898-PJM)
Submitted: November 22, 2004 Decided: January 18, 2005
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael J. Sindram, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Michael J. Sindram appeals
district court orders dismissing his complaint against several
state court judges for failing to state a claim and dismissing
without prejudice for failing to state a claim his complaint
against Columbia Union College and several individuals. Sindram
also appeals orders denying his motions for reconsideration filed
in each case. With respect to Nos. 04-2200 and 04-2210, in which
Sindram appeals the district court order dismissing his complaint
against state court judges and denying his motion for
reconsideration, we have reviewed the record and the district court
orders and dismiss the appeals as frivolous on the reasoning of the
district court. See Sindram v. Raker, No. CA-04-1790-PJM (D. Md.
filed July 19, 2004; entered July 20, 2004, and September 21,
2004).
In No. 04-2211, Sindram appeals district court orders
dismissing without prejudice his complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1981(2000) and denying his motion for reconsideration. The district
court’s dismissal without prejudice is not appealable. See Domino
Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67
(4th Cir. 1993). A dismissal without prejudice is a final order
only if no amendment could cure the defects in the complaint. Id.
at 1067. In ascertaining whether a dismissal without prejudice is
reviewable in this court, we must determine “whether the plaintiff
- 3 -
could save his action by merely amending his complaint.” Id.Because Sindram may cure the defect in his complaint by filing a
supplemental or amended complaint in accordance with the district
court’s order, the dismissal order is not appealable. Accordingly,
we dismiss the appeal from both orders.
We dismiss as frivolous Nos. 04-2200 and 04-2210. We
dismiss No. 04-2211 under the rule announced in Domino Sugar. We
deny Sindram’s motion for appointment of counsel filed in No. 04-
2200 and the motion to deconsolidate the cases. 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
- 4 -