Filed: Jul. 23, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1595 NANCY LEE BOGART, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEICO INSURANCE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-1635-A) Submitted: June 28, 1996 Decided: July 23, 1996 Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nancy Lee Bogart, Appellant Pro Se
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1595 NANCY LEE BOGART, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEICO INSURANCE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-1635-A) Submitted: June 28, 1996 Decided: July 23, 1996 Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nancy Lee Bogart, Appellant Pro Se...
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-1595
NANCY LEE BOGART,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
GEICO INSURANCE,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief
District Judge. (CA-95-1635-A)
Submitted: June 28, 1996 Decided: July 23, 1996
Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nancy Lee Bogart, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Andrew Geschickter,
Staff Counsel, GEICO, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing
her complaint without prejudice. A district court's dismissal with-
out 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 could be final if "no amendment [to the
complaint] could cure defects in the plaintiff's case." Id. at
1067. In ascertaining whether a dismissal without prejudice is
reviewable in this court, the court must determine "whether the
plaintiff could save her action by merely amending the complaint."
Id. at 1066-67.
Because Appellant could have amended her complaint to prevent
dismissal, 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