Clemmon Woodard v. Sheriff Donnie Harrison

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:08-ct-03177-D Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998701354]. Mailed to: Woodard. [11-6626]

Appeal: 11-6626

Document: 12

Date Filed: 10/17/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6626

CLEMMON AUGUSTA WOODARD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SHERIFF DONNIE HARRISON; MEDICAL STAFF OF WAKE COUNTY JAIL,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever III,
District Judge. (5:08-ct-03177-D)

Submitted:

October 13, 2011

Decided:

October 17, 2011

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clemmon Augusta Woodard, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-6626

Document: 12

Date Filed: 10/17/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Clemmon Augusta Woodard seeks to appeal the district
court’s

dismissal

of

his

42

U.S.C.

§ 1983

(2006)

complaint

without prejudice because he failed to comply with the district
court’s

order

to

particularize

his

complaint.

Generally,

a

district court’s dismissal of a complaint without prejudice is
not appealable.

See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local

Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (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
plaintiff’s case”) (alteration in original) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
make

clear

that

“However, . . . if the grounds of the dismissal
no

amendment

could

cure

the

defects

in

the

plaintiff’s 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, Woodard may be able to save his action
by amending his complaint to comply with the district court’s
order

to

particularize.

Therefore,

the

district

court’s

dismissal of Woodard’s complaint without prejudice is not an
appealable final order.
lack of jurisdiction.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for
We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2

Appeal: 11-6626

Document: 12

materials

before

Date Filed: 10/17/2011

the

court

and

Page: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

air

the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

3