Karl Mitchell v. The Attorney Generals
This text of Karl Mitchell v. The Attorney Generals (Karl Mitchell v. The Attorney Generals) 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.
Opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 24-7151 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/29/2025 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-7151
KARL C. MITCHELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALS,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Rossie David Alston, Jr., District Judge. (1:24-cv-00232-RDA-IDD)
Submitted: January 23, 2025 Decided: January 29, 2025
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Karl C. Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-7151 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/29/2025 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Karl C. Mitchell seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and permitting him to
file an amended complaint. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders,
28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed.
R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949).
“[A]n order that dismisses a complaint with leave to amend is not a final decision because
it means that the district court is not finished with the case.” Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790,
793 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (order).
The district court granted Mitchell leave to amend and, further, granted him an
extension of time to do so. Accordingly, the order Mitchell seeks to appeal is neither a
final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See id. at 797 (explaining
that “a plaintiff who wishes to stand on h[is] complaint should request that the district court
enter a final decision dismissing h[is] case without leave to amend”). We therefore 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 this 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Karl Mitchell v. The Attorney Generals, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karl-mitchell-v-the-attorney-generals-ca4-2025.