Elbert Smith v. Sue Bunch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:15-cv-00491-JPJ-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999786904]. Mailed to: Smith. [15-7892]

Appeal: 15-7892

Doc: 10

Filed: 04/01/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7892

ELBERT SMITH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SUE BUNCH, Mailroom
RANDALL C. MATHENA,
M. HINKLE, Regional
Virginia; HAROLD W.
of Corrections,

Clerk; TERESA PEASE, Mailroom Associate;
Warden of Red Onion State Prison; GEORGE
Administrator for the Western Region of
CLARKE, Director of Virginia Department

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
James P. Jones, District
Judge. (7:15-cv-00491-JPJ-RSB)

Submitted:

March 29, 2016

Decided:

April 1, 2016

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

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elbert Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7892

Doc: 10

Filed: 04/01/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Elbert Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) civil
rights

action

as

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).

Because

the

deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by
the filing of an amended complaint, we conclude that the order
Smith seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order.

Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid

Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623–24 (4th Cir. 2015); Domino Sugar
Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066–67
(4th Cir. 1993).
Accordingly,

we

dismiss

this

appeal

for

lack

of

jurisdiction, but we remand this case to the district court to
permit Smith to amend his complaint.

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