ROBBINS v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF AGING AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 14-1545. (2015)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20150123149
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jan. 26, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 26, 2015
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM. Iva Robbins appeals the district court's orders denying, without prejudice, her motion for appointment of counsel, denying her motion for a temporary restraining order, and dismissing, without prejudice, * her complaint seeking injunctive relief against Defendants. Limiting our review to the issues raised in Robbins' informal brief, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b), we affirm the district court's orders. See Ro
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM. Iva Robbins appeals the district court's orders denying, without prejudice, her motion for appointment of counsel, denying her motion for a temporary restraining order, and dismissing, without prejudice, * her complaint seeking injunctive relief against Defendants. Limiting our review to the issues raised in Robbins' informal brief, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b), we affirm the district court's orders. See Rob..
More
UNPUBLISHED
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Iva Robbins appeals the district court's orders denying, without prejudice, her motion for appointment of counsel, denying her motion for a temporary restraining order, and dismissing, without prejudice,* her complaint seeking injunctive relief against Defendants. Limiting our review to the issues raised in Robbins' informal brief, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b), we affirm the district court's orders. See Robbins v. Va. Dep't of Aging & Rehab. Servs., No. 1:14-cv-00626-LO-TCB (E.D. Va. May 30, 2014; June 6, 2014). 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.
FootNotes
* Generally, dismissals without prejudice are not appealable. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066 (4th Cir. 1993). However, a dismissal without prejudice could be final if no amendment to the complaint could cure the defects in the plaintiff's case. See id. at 1066-67. We find that the district court's order is a final, appealable order because the defects in Robbins' complaint—failure to exhaust administrative remedies—must be cured by something more than an amendment to the complaint. See id.
Source: Leagle
