Richard Manigault v. Albert Housey

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motions to appoint/assign counsel [1000138315-2], [1000101921-2] Originating case number: 0:15-cv-04647-JFA. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000267583]. Mailed to: R Manigault. [17-6634]

Appeal: 17-6634

Doc: 32

Filed: 03/30/2018

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6634

RICHARD MANIGAULT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ALBERT HOUSEY, Lieutenant,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
RYAN GRANT, Corporal; DUSTIN CROSBY, Officer; GARY EICHELBERGER,
Major; VALERIE JACKSON, Captain/Disciplinary Hearing Officer; LEVERN
COHEN, Warden,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (0:15-cv-04647-JFA)

Submitted: March 15, 2018

Decided: March 30, 2018

Before MOTZ, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded with instructions by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 17-6634

Doc: 32

Filed: 03/30/2018

Pg: 2 of 4

Richard Manigault, Appellant Pro Se. Otto Edworth Liipfert, III, GRIFFITH, FREEMAN
& LIIPFERT, LLC, Beaufort, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 17-6634

Doc: 32

Filed: 03/30/2018

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Richard Manigault seeks to appeal the district court’s judgment entered in his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. The judgment was entered in accordance with the
jury’s verdict in favor of Defendant Housey following a trial, the district court’s March 24,
2017, order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants Grant and Crobsy, and the
district court’s March 1, 2016, order dismissing the action without prejudice as against
Defendants Eichelberger, Jackson, and Cohen for failure to state a cognizable claim against
them. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen
v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545–47 (1949).
“An order dismissing a complaint without prejudice is not an appealable final order
under § 1291 if the plaintiff could save his action by merely amending his complaint.”
Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Where the 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. Id. at 623–25.
The judgment Manigault seeks to appeal is neither a final judgment nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral judgment. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and
remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Manigault leave to amend
his complaint as against Defendants Eichelberger, Jackson, and Cohen.

We deny

Manigault’s motions to appoint counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts

3

Appeal: 17-6634

Doc: 32

Filed: 03/30/2018

Pg: 4 of 4

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

4