Sherry Eveland v. State of Maryland


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-1562 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/22/2016 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1562 SHERRY RAY EVELAND, In the Matter of; Direct Legal Descendant of the Estate Legal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 Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 16-1562 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/22/2016 Pg: 3 of 4 PER CURIAM: Sherry Ray Eveland seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?