Tamara Rouhi v. CVS Pharmacy, Incorporated

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-1462
TAMARA ROUHI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CVS PHARMACY; GIANT PHARMACY; WEGMANS PHARMACY;
WALGREENS PHARMACY; NATURE CARE/ HEALTH MART PHARMACY;
MCKESSON CORPORATION,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:19-cv-00701-RDB)
Submitted: August 20, 2020 Decided: August 24, 2020
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tamara Rouhi, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Donald Frey, Hilla Shimshoni, ALSTON & BIRD,
LLP, Washington, D.C.; Joseph Gregory Donlin, Richard William Scheiner, SEMMES,
BOWEN & SEMMES, Baltimore, Maryland; Aaron Andrew Nichols, WHITEFORD,
TAYLOR & PRESTON, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Alicia L. Shelton, ZUCKERMAN
SPAEDER, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tamara Rouhi seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing her complaint
without prejudice and denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 motion. 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). “[D]ismissals without prejudice generally are not
appealable ‘unless the grounds for dismissal clearly indicate that no amendment in the
complaint could cure the defects in the plaintiff’s case.’” Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC, 959 F.3d
605, 610 (4th Cir. 2020) (quoting Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,
10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1993)). Because the district court recognized the possibility
that amendment could cure the defects in the complaint, id., 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 Rouhi to amend the complaint. 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