Filed: Feb. 26, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7776 TROY MATTHEW JACKSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHUCK SPRID, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-1235-7) Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 26, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Troy Matthew Jackson, Appellant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7776 TROY MATTHEW JACKSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHUCK SPRID, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-1235-7) Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 26, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Troy Matthew Jackson, Appellant ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7776
TROY MATTHEW JACKSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CHUCK SPRID,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
Judge. (CA-02-1235-7)
Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 26, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Troy Matthew Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Troy Matthew Jackson appeals the district court’s order
dismissing without prejudice his complaint filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). 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
[in the complaint] could cure the defects in the plaintiff’s
case.’” Id. at 1067 (quoting Coniston Corp. v. Village of Hoffman
Estates,
844 F.2d 461, 463 (7th Cir. 1988)). In ascertaining
whether a dismissal without prejudice is reviewable in this court,
we must determine “whether the plaintiff could save his action by
merely amending his complaint.” Id. at 1066-67. In this case,
Jackson may move in the district court to reopen his case and to
file an amended complaint specifically alleging facts sufficient to
state a § 1983 claim. Therefore, the dismissal order is not
appealable. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. 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 -