William Martin, Jr. v. Kevin Brackett

485 F. App'x 634
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided October 15, 2012·No. 12-1896·Unpublished

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William F. Martin, Jr., appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing without prejudice Martin’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. * We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Martin v. Brackett, No. 0:12-cv00054-RBH (D.S.C. June 28, 2012); see Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 422, 427, 430-31, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976); Carter v. Burch, 34 F.3d 257, 262-63 (4th Cir.1994). 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.

AFFIRMED.

*

While dismissals without prejudice generally are interlocutory and not appealable, a dismissal without prejudice may be final if no amendment to the complaint can cure the defect in the plaintiff's case. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.1993). On the available record, we conclude that the defect identified by the district court cannot be cured by an amendment to the complaint and that the order therefore is appealable.

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

William Martin, Jr. v. Kevin Brackett, 485 F. App'x 634 (4th Cir. 2012).

485 F. App'x 634 (William Martin, Jr. v. Kevin Brackett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related