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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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