Sherri Boardley v. Dept of Agri/Consumer Service

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal [999736099-2]. Originating case number: 3:15-cv-00634-HEH. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999836701]. Mailed to: Appellant. [15-2517]

Appeal: 15-2517

Doc: 9

Filed: 05/31/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2517

SHERRI BOARDLEY,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:15-cv-00634-HEH)

Submitted:

April 29, 2016

Decided:

May 31, 2016

Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sherri Boardley, Appellant Pro Se. Edwin Lewis Kincer, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2517

Doc: 9

Filed: 05/31/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Sherri Boardley seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing

her

complaint

without

prejudice.

This

court

may

exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291
(2012),

and

certain

interlocutory

and

collateral

orders,

28

U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial
Indus.

Loan

Boardley

Corp.,

seeks

to

337

U.S.

appeal

541,

is

545-46

neither

a

(1949).
final

appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

The

order

order

nor

an

See Domino Sugar

Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67
(4th Cir. 1993).

Accordingly, we grant Appellee’s motion to

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case
to the district court with instructions to allow Boardley to
file an amended complaint.

See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid

Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 630 (4th Cir. 2015).

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED AND REMANDED

2