Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Brown v. SC Dept Corr, 96-7495 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7495 Visitors: 3
Filed: Jan. 24, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7495 CLENARD BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; MICHAEL MOORE, Director of SCDC; DOUGLAS A. ROBINSON, Construction Supervisor, SCDC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-1966-2-21AJ) Submitted: January 7, 1997 Decided: January 24, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN
More
                           UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



                           No. 96-7495



CLENARD BROWN,

                                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

         versus

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
MICHAEL MOORE, Director of SCDC; DOUGLAS A.
ROBINSON, Construction Supervisor, SCDC,

                                            Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. William B. Traxler, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-96-1966-2-21AJ)

Submitted:   January 7, 1997             Decided:   January 24, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN, ERVIN, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Clenard Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his

42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1994) complaint without prejudice. A dismissal

without prejudice is not reviewable by the court unless the reasons

stated for the dismissal clearly disclose that no amendment to the

complaint could cure its defects. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar
Workers Local Union 392, 
10 F.3d 1064
, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). In

the present case, the district court expressly referred Appellant

to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation for instruc-

tions on how to cure his defective complaint. The appeal is there-
fore dismissed. 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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer