Roberson v. Graziano

Filing 920061013


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6858 CLEVEN LEWIS ROBERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAUL GRAZIANO, Executive Director, Authority of Baltimore City, Housing Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:05-cv-02725-RDB) Submitted: September 27, 2006 Decided: October 13, 2006 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cleven Lewis Roberson, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Maddox Riley, SAMUEL M. RILEY, L.L.C., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Cleven Lewis Roberson appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his civil complaint for insufficiency of service of process.* We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Roberson v. Graziano, No. 1:05-cv-02725-RDB We dispense (D. Md. filed Apr. 27, 2006 & entered Apr. 28, 2006). 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 Generally, dismissals without prejudice are interlocutory and not appealable. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066 (4th Cir. 1993). However, a dismissal without prejudice could be final if no amendment to the complaint would cure the defect in the plaintiff's case. Id. at 1066-67. We conclude that the order is appealable because the defect in this case (the failure to serve Defendant) can only be cured by something more than an amendment to the complaint. - 2 - *

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?