Elbert Smith v. Sue Bunch

Fourth Circuit

Elbert Smith v. Sue Bunch

643 F. App'x 256

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 1, 2016

Docket15-7892

StatusUnpublished

This text of 643 F. App'x 256 (Elbert Smith v. Sue Bunch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Elbert Smith v. Sue Bunch, 643 F. App'x 256 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Elbert Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) civil rights action as frivolous. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by the filing of an amended complaint, we conclude that the order Smith seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an ap-pealable interlocutory or collateral order. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir.2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.1993).

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, but we remand this case to the district court to permit Smith to amend his complaint. 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.

DISMISSED AND REMANDED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Elbert Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) civil rights action as frivolous. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by the filing of an amended complaint, we conclude that the order Smith seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an ap-pealable interlocutory or collateral order. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir.2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.1993).

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, but we remand this case to the district court to permit Smith to amend his complaint. 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.

DISMISSED AND REMANDED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

643 F. App'x 256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elbert-smith-v-sue-bunch-ca4-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack