Patrick Christian v. Commonwealth State of Virginia

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:15-cv-00205-JRS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999651547]. Mailed to: Patrick O. Christian. [15-6657]

Appeal: 15-6657

Doc: 16

Filed: 09/01/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6657

PATRICK CHRISTIAN,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH STATE OF VIRGINIA,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
James R. Spencer, Senior
District Judge. (3:15-cv-00205-JRS)

Submitted:

August 27, 2015

Decided: September 1, 2015

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patrick Christian, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6657

Doc: 16

Filed: 09/01/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Patrick

Christian

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s

order dismissing without prejudice his civil complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii) (2012) for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted and because the complaint
was otherwise frivolous.

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 Corp.,
337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949).

“Dismissals without prejudice are

generally not appealable final orders.”
F.3d 505, 511 n.3 (4th Cir. 2015).

In re GNC Corp., 789

Because the deficiencies

identified by the district court may be remedied by the filing
of an amended complaint, we conclude that the order Christian
seeks

to

appeal

is

neither

a

final

interlocutory or collateral order.

order

nor

an

appealable

Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar

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

we

dismiss

the

appeal

for

lack

of

We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

2

Appeal: 15-6657

before

Doc: 16

this

court

Filed: 09/01/2015

and

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3