UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1318
CALVIN RUFFIN MALLORY,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
DEBORAH ATKINSON, Director, VA Hospital; DR. POINDEXTER,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (3:09-cv-00139-RLW)
Submitted: July 30, 2009 Decided: August 4, 2009
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Calvin Ruffin Mallory, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Calvin Ruffin Mallory seeks to appeal the district
court’s dismissal of his complaint without prejudice because
Mallory failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
8(a)(2), which requires “a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” and the
district court’s October 4, 2002, order enjoining Mallory from
filing pleadings that do not comport with certain requirements.
Generally, a district court’s dismissal of a complaint
without prejudice is not appealable. See Domino Sugar Corp. v.
Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.
1993) (holding that “a plaintiff may not appeal the dismissal of
his complaint without prejudice unless the grounds for dismissal
clearly indicate that no amendment in the complaint could cure
the defects in the plaintiff’s case”) (internal quotation marks,
alteration, and citation omitted). However, “if the grounds of
the dismissal make clear that no amendment could cure the
defects in the plaintiff's case, the order dismissing the
complaint is final in fact and appellate jurisdiction exists.”
Id. at 1066 (internal quotation marks, alteration, and citation
omitted).
In this case, Mallory may be able to save his action
by amending his complaint to comply with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8 and the district court’s October 4, 2002, order.
2
Therefore, the district court’s dismissal of Mallory’s complaint
without prejudice is not an appealable final order.
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 air the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3