Thorne-El v. North Carolina

446 F. App'x 578
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided September 16, 2011·No. No. 11-6636·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

T. Thorne-El appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint without prejudice. Because Thorne-El may amend his complaint to cure the defects identified by the district court, the dismiss[579]*579al order is interlocutory and not appeal-able. 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

Thorne-El v. North Carolina, 446 F. App'x 578 (4th Cir. 2011).

446 F. App'x 578 (Thorne-El v. North Carolina) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Thorne-El v. North Carolina
181 L. Ed. 2d 747 (Supreme Court, 2012)