Harold Thornton v. Christopher Zych

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999334927-2]; granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999315287-2] Originating case number: 7:14-cv-00065-GEC-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999367818]. Mailed to: Thornton. [14-6386]

Appeal: 14-6386

Doc: 12

Filed: 06/03/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6386

HAROLD J. THORNTON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CHRISTOPHER ZYCH, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (7:14-cv-00065-GEC-RSB)

Submitted:

May 29, 2014

Decided:

June 3, 2014

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harold Jerome Thornton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6386

Doc: 12

Filed: 06/03/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Harold
the

district

(2012)

Jerome

court’s

petition

We have

for

reviewed

order
lack

the

Accordingly,

affirm

court.

we

we
for

a

federal

dismissing
of

record

although

pauperis,

Thornton,

grant
the

his

subject
and

prisoner,
28

matter

appeals

U.S.C.

jurisdiction. *

find

no

reversible

leave

to

proceed

reasons

stated

by

§ 2241

the

error.

in

forma

district

Thornton v. Zych, No. 7:14-cv-00065-GEC-RSB (W.D. Va.

Feb. 25, 2014).
and dispense
contentions

We deny Thornton’s motion to appoint counsel

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

*

Although dismissals without prejudice generally are
interlocutory and not appealable, a dismissal without prejudice
may be final if no amendment to the complaint can cure the
defect in the plaintiff’s case.
Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar
Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066–67 (4th Cir. 1993).
On the available record, we conclude that the defect identified
by the district court cannot be cured by an amendment to the
petition and that the dismissal order therefore is appealable.

2