UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1672
DEREK N. JARVIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:10-cv-01330-PJM)
Submitted: August 26, 2010 Decided: September 1, 2010
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Derek N. Jarvis, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Derek N. Jarvis appeals from the district court’s
order dismissing his complaint, without prejudice, because it
failed to contain a short, plain statement of facts, as required
by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The order also denied Jarvis’
motion to recuse the district judge.
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”) (alteration in original)
(internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, Jarvis would
be able to save his action by amending his complaint to comply
with the district court’s order. Therefore, the district
court’s dismissal of Jarvis’ complaint without prejudice is not
an appealable final order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal
for lack of jurisdiction.
On appeal, Jarvis has filed a petition for writ of
mandamus seeking this court to compel the district court judge
to recuse himself from Jarvis’ proceeding below. Mandamus
relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right
to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860
2
F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic
remedy and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances.
Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In
re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Jarvis has not
made such a showing. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ
of mandamus. 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
3