Smith v. Robinson (4th Cir. 2004)

Federal Circuits, 4th Cir. (March 03, 2004)

Docket number: 03-7751
Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/18198649
Id. vLex: VLEX-18198649

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


Citations:

Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7751 AALON SMITH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DAVID ROBINSON, Warden of N.C.C.; T. JOHNSON,

Correctional Officer; J. MARSHALL, Lieutenant

Supervisor,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District

Judge. (CA-03-660)

Submitted: January 30, 2004 Decided: March 3, 2004

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aalon Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

- 2 - PER CURIAM: Aalon Smith appeals the district court§ 1983 (2000) action. The district

court dismissed the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for

failure to immediately notify the court of his change in address.

Because of that failure, correspondence from the court addressed to

Smith was returned as undeliverable. The district courtÂ’s dismissal without prejudice is not appealable. See

Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union

, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). A dismissal without prejudice is a final order only if “‘no amendment [in the

complaint] could cure the defects in the plaintiff’s case.’” Id. at 1067 (quoting Coniston Corp. v. Village of Hoffman Estates

, 844 F.2d 461, 463 (7th Cir. 1988)). In ascertaining whether a

dismissal without prejudice is reviewable in this court, we must

determine “whether the plaintiff could save his action by merely

amending his complaint.” Domino Sugar

, 10 F.3d at 1066-67. In this case, Smith may move in the district court to reopen his case

and to file a signed complaint giving his present address.

Therefore, the dismissal order is not appealable. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED

Other documents:
7 CFR 70.30 - Who may obtain grading service. | notice ninth circuit rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential ... | 26 cfr 1.1036-1 - stock for stock of the same corporation. | Notice Fourth Circuit I.O.P 36.6 States that Citation of Unpublished Dispositions is Disfavored Excep... | Eland v Cleversy Ohio 2006 | ANUNCIO del Ayuntamiento de Calders, sobre aprobacion de un plan urbanistico. | Citacion a los interesados para ser notificados por comparecencia | Smith v. General Apartment Company., 133 Ga. App. 927, 213 S.E.2d 74 (1975) | Case of Tribunal Superior de Justicia - Madrid - Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo n 243/2... | resolucion de 24 de noviembre de 2000, de la delegacion provincial de ourense, por la que se autoriza y se aprueba el proyecto de ej... | Nora D. Terry v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart (8th Cir. 2003) | NOTIFICACION del Servicio Territorial de Medio Ambiente de Salamanca por la que se comunican Resoluciones...