Somchai Noonsab v. NC Government

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:16-ct-03122-FL. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999949357]. Mailed to: S. Noonsab. [16-7005]

Appeal: 16-7005

Doc: 31

Filed: 10/18/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7005

SOMCHAI NOONSAB,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NC GOVERNMENT; W. BROWN; STEPHEN M. RUSSELL, SR.; MELANIE A.
SHEKITA; MAGISTRATE E. RAY BRIGGS; PAUL G. GESSNER; MICHAEL
G. HOWELL; PAUL C. RIDEWOY; DANIEL HORN, Clerk of Court;
TERRI STEWART; ROY COOPER; MR. HOCKEY; CHRISTINA CAMERON
ROEDEO; GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND MORE LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS, LAWYERS AND JUDGES IN SAID CASES,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:16-ct-03122-FL)

Submitted:

October 13, 2016

Decided:

October 18, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Somchai Noonsab, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7005

Doc: 31

Filed: 10/18/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Somchai
dismissing

Noonsab
without

appeals

the

prejudice ∗

complaint as duplicative.
no reversible error.

his

district
42

court’s
§ 1983

U.S.C.

order
(2012)

We have reviewed the record and find

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court.

Noonsab v. NC Gov’t, No. 5:16-ct-

03122-FL (E.D.N.C. July 8, 2016).

We deny Noonsab’s motion for

a certificate of appealability as unnecessary.

We dispense with

oral

contentions

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

this

court

are
and

argument would not aid in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

∗

We conclude this is a final appealable order because
Noonsab may not amend his complaint to cure the defect.
See
Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 629-30
(4th Cir. 2015) (holding that dismissal without prejudice is not
appealable unless “the district court’s grounds for dismissal
clearly indicate that no amendment could cure the complaint’s
defects”).

2