Gary Gaskins v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:12-cv-00367-MSD-DEM. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998981713]. Mailed to: Gary Gaskins. [12-1930]
Appeal: 12-1930
Doc: 7
Filed: 11/15/2012
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1930
GARY L. GASKINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:12-cv-00367-MSD-DEM)
Submitted:
November 13, 2012
Decided: November 15, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary L. Gaskins, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 12-1930
Doc: 7
Filed: 11/15/2012
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Gary L. Gaskins seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing without prejudice his complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e) (2006) for failing to state a cognizable claim.
court
may
exercise
jurisdiction
only
over
final
This
orders,
28
U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral
orders.
28
U.S.C.
§
1292
(2006);
Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545–
46 (1949).
The order Gaskins seeks to appeal is neither a final
order
an
nor
appealable
interlocutory
or
collateral
order
because it is possible for him to cure the pleading deficiencies
in
the
court.
complaint
that
were
identified
by
the
district
See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,
10 F.3d 1064, 1066–67 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that a dismissal
without prejudice is not appealable unless it is clear that no
amendment
to
plaintiff’s
the
case”
complaint
“could
(internal
cure
quotation
the
defects
marks
in
the
omitted));
see
also Chao v. Rivendell Woods, Inc., 415 F.3d 342, 345 (4th Cir.
2005)
(explaining
“examine
based
on
against
the
the
that,
under
appealability
specific
piecemeal
Domino
of
facts
a
of
litigation
Sugar,
dismissal
the
and
case
this
court
without
in
order
repetitive
must
prejudice
to
guard
appeals”).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
dispense
with
oral
argument
because
2
the
facts
and
We
legal
Appeal: 12-1930
Doc: 7
Filed: 11/15/2012
Pg: 3 of 3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3
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?