Andrea Charters v. Atessa Shahmirzadi


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:17-cv-00268-LMB-IDD. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [1000129951]. Mailed to: Andrea Lea Charters. [17-1340]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-1340 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/02/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1340 ANDREA LEA CHARTERS, a/k/a Andrea L. Charters, a/k/a Andrea Lea Aronovitz, a/k/a Andrea Charters, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ATESSA SHAHMIRZADI; POTOMAC LAW GROUP, PLLC; HARVARD UNIVERSITY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00268-LMB-IDD) Submitted: July 28, 2017 Decided: August 2, 2017 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrea Lea Charters, Appellant Pro Se. Ronda Brown Esaw, GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP, McLean, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 17-1340 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/02/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Andrea Lea Charters seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice her federal civil complaint. 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, 545-47 (1949). Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by filing an amended complaint, see Galustian v. Peter, 591 F.3d 724, 730 (4th Cir. 2010) (applying Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) rather than Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 where plaintiff sought to add party by amending complaint); Mayes v. Rapoport, 198 F.3d 457, 462 n.11 (4th Cir. 1999) (same), we conclude that the order Charters seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Charters to amend her complaint. Goode, 807 F.3d at 630. 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 2

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?