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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-1698 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/16/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1698 FRIZZELL CARRELL WOODSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant -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 Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 16-1698 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/16/2016 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Frizzell Carrell Woodson seeks to appeal the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?