Frizzell Woodson v. US
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for default judgment [999909556-2] in 16-1698, denying Motion for default judgment [999909549-2] in 16-1704, denying Motion for default judgment [999909551-2] in 16-1706, denying Motion for default judgment [999909552-2] in 16-1708; denying Motion to deconsolidate/sever [999921356-2] in 16-1698, denying Motion to deconsolidate/sever [999921362-2] in 16-1704, denying Motion to deconsolidate/sever [999921366-2] in 16-1706, denying Motion to deconsolidate/sever [999921373-2] in 16-1708. Originating case number: 3:16-cv-00233-HEH. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999930709]. Mailed to: Frizzell Carrell Woodson. [16-1698, 16-1704, 16-1706, 16-1708]
Appeal: 16-1698
Doc: 13
Filed: 09/16/2016
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1698
FRIZZELL CARRELL WOODSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 16-1704
FRIZZELL CARRELL WOODSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 16-1706
FRIZZELL CARRELL WOODSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appeal: 16-1698
Doc: 13
Filed: 09/16/2016
Pg: 2 of 3
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 16-1708
FRIZZELL CARRELL WOODSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:16-cv-00233-HEH; 3:16-cv-00234-HEH; 3:16-cv-00235-HEH;
3:16-cv-00236-HEH)
Submitted:
September 13, 2016
Decided: September 16, 2016
Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frizzell Carrell Woodson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Appeal: 16-1698
Doc: 13
Filed: 09/16/2016
Pg: 3 of 3
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Frizzell Carrell Woodson seeks
to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing without prejudice
his complaints for failing to plead sufficient facts to state a
claim.
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, 545-46 (1949).
An order dismissing a complaint without prejudice is not an
appealable final order if “the plaintiff could save his action by
merely amending his 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
pleading deficiency.
could
amend
the
complaint
to
cure
the
Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc.,
807 F.3d 619, 624 (4th Cir. 2015).
Accordingly, we deny Woodson’s
motions for default judgment and to deconsolidate the appeals,
dismiss the appeals, and remand the cases to the district court
with instructions to allow Woodson to file amended complaints.
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
3
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?