Mallory v. Poindexter

390 F. App'x 240
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedAugust 5, 2010
Docket10-1538
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 390 F. App'x 240 (Mallory v. Poindexter) 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
Mallory v. Poindexter, 390 F. App'x 240 (4th Cir. 2010).

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Calvin Ruffin Mallory seeks to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his complaint without prejudice because he failed to comply with the district court’s October 4, 2002, order enjoining him from filing pleadings that do not comport with certain requirements, such as legibility and submission on the proper forms.

Generally, a district court’s dismissal of a complaint without prejudice is not ap-pealable. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.1993) (holding that “a plaintiff may not appeal the dismissal of his complaint without prejudice unless the grounds for dismissal clearly indicate that no amendment [in the complaint] could cure the defects in the plaintiffs case”) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, “if the grounds of the dismissal make clear that no amendment could cure the defects in the plaintiffs case, the order dismissing the complaint is final in fact and [appellate jurisdiction exists].” Id. at 1066 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).

In this case, Mallory may be able to save his action by amending his complaint to comply with the district court’s 2002 order. Therefore, the district court’s dismissal of Mallory’s complaint without prejudice is not an appealable final order. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argu *241 ment 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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
390 F. App'x 240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mallory-v-poindexter-ca4-2010.