Filed: Jun. 01, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6442 HUGH ROYAL EPPS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ROBERT WAGNER, Attorney, Defendant - Appellee. No. 09-6445 HUGH ROYAL EPPS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GERALD THOMAS ZERKIN, Attorney, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:08-cv-00808-JRS; 3:08-cv-00807-JRS) Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: June 1, 2009 B
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6442 HUGH ROYAL EPPS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ROBERT WAGNER, Attorney, Defendant - Appellee. No. 09-6445 HUGH ROYAL EPPS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GERALD THOMAS ZERKIN, Attorney, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:08-cv-00808-JRS; 3:08-cv-00807-JRS) Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: June 1, 2009 Be..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6442
HUGH ROYAL EPPS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT WAGNER, Attorney,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 09-6445
HUGH ROYAL EPPS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GERALD THOMAS ZERKIN, Attorney,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (3:08-cv-00808-JRS; 3:08-cv-00807-JRS)
Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: June 1, 2009
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hugh Royal Epps, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Hugh Epps appeals
district court orders dismissing his complaints without
prejudice for failing to file in a timely manner a short plain
statement of jurisdiction. Epps was free to amend the
complaints to cure the defects. A dismissal without prejudice
is not reviewable by this court unless the reasons stated for
the dismissal clearly disclose that no amendment to the
complaint could cure its defects. See Domino Sugar Corp. v.
Sugar Workers Local Union 392,
10 F.3d 1064, 66-67 (4th Cir.
1993). Because Epps could cure the defect in each complaint, we
dismiss the appeals. Id. 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
3