Sherry Eveland v. State of Maryland

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999826494-2]; denying Motion for other relief [999909417-2] Originating case number: 1:16-cv-00762-CCB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999914272]. Mailed to: Sherry Ray Eveland 241 Smith Road Rising Sun, MD 21911. [16-1562]

Appeal: 16-1562

Doc: 12

Filed: 08/22/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1562

SHERRY RAY EVELAND, In the Matter of; Direct Legal
Descendant
of
the
Estate
Legal
Executor/Personal
Representative of James Ray Charles Deceased Father,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
JODY EVELAND, Senior, Son-In-Law of James Ray Charles
Deceased; JODY EVELAND, Junior, Son-In-law of James Ray
Charles Deceased,
Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND, Through its Legal Representative Brian
Frosh Esq.; LEONARD E. WILSON LAW OFFICE, & Leonard Wilson
Attorney Alleged; ANDRUIS D. ROGERS; WILLIAM RIDDLE LAW
FIRM; LAW FIRM OF ROLLINS & DELLMYER, PA; CHARLES BERNSTEIN,
Alleged Judge; BELINDA K. CONAWAY, Esq.,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, Chief District
Judge. (1:16-cv-00762-CCB)

Submitted:

August 18, 2016

Decided:

August 22, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 16-1562

Doc: 12

Filed: 08/22/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

Sherry Ray Eveland, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-1562

Doc: 12

Filed: 08/22/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Sherry Ray Eveland seeks to appeal the district court’s
order

dismissing

district
motions.

court’s

without
margin

prejudice
orders

her

denying

complaint
various

and

the

postjudgment

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, 54546 (1949).
An order dismissing a complaint without prejudice is not an
appealable final order if “the plaintiff could save [her] action
by merely amending the complaint.”

Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar

Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).
Where a district court dismisses an action for failure to plead
sufficient

facts

in

the

complaint,

we

lack

appellate

jurisdiction because the plaintiff could amend the complaint to
cure the pleading deficiency.

Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid

Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 624 (4th Cir. 2015).
Accordingly,

we

dismiss

Eveland’s

appeal

and

remand

the

case to the district court with instructions to allow Eveland to
file an amended complaint.

We deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis and deny the motion for mandamus relief.

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

3

Appeal: 16-1562

Doc: 12

adequately

Filed: 08/22/2016

presented

in

the

Pg: 4 of 4

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED AND REMANDED

4