Henderson v. Downes

Fourth Circuit

Henderson v. Downes

300 F. App'x 211

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided November 18, 2008·No. No. 08-1866·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

David E. Henderson appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his complaint against Defendants for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Because Henderson may amend his complaint to cure the defects identified by the district court, we find that the dismissal order is interlocutory and not appealable. See Chao v. Rivendell Woods, Inc., 415 F.3d 342, 345 (4th Cir.2005); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.1993). 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.

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

PER CURIAM:

David E. Henderson appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his complaint against Defendants for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Because Henderson may amend his complaint to cure the defects identified by the district court, we find that the dismissal order is interlocutory and not appealable. See Chao v. Rivendell Woods, Inc., 415 F.3d 342, 345 (4th Cir.2005); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.1993). 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.

Henderson v. Downes, 300 F. App'x 211 (4th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

300 F. App'x 211 (Henderson v. Downes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related