April McDaniel v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
APRIL MCDANIEL, Plaintiff Appellant, v. GREYHOUND LINES, INC.; LISA BORROW, Manager at Greyhound; TOMMY SCHEWL, Area Manager at Greyhound; JANE DOE, a/k/a Leslie, Defendants Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:08-cv-00130-FDW-CH)
December 11, 2008
December 15, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
April McDaniel, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Douglas McKnight, Robert Allen Sar, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: April dismissing McDaniel appeals the district court's order
employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. The court specifically dismissed the
action noting that because it had not ruled on the merits of the compliant and was dismissing it for lack of subject was matter free to
refile her complaint after curing these defects. without reasons prejudice stated is not the reviewable dismissal by the court
A dismissal unless that the no
amendment to the complaint could cure its defects.
Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). court properly found that In the present case, the district McDaniel failed to allege facts
establishing subject matter and personal jurisdiction. Because McDaniel could possibly cure these defects Id. by amending her
complaint, we dismiss this appeal.
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
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?