UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6159
CHRISTOPHER ODOM,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, #950R1005342; Claim Date 10-29-10;
Judge Garfinkel, seal on 10-29-10; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
TAXPAYERS; PEOPLE OF CHARLESTON TAXPAYERS; CHARLESTON
COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE; SHERIFF AL CANNON
EMPLOYEES; SHERIFF AL CANNON; SHERIFF AL CANNON DETENTION
CENTER; CITY OF CHARLESTON TAXPAYERS, Mayor Riley; CITY OF
N. CHARLESTON TAXPAYERS, Mayor K. Summey; CITY OF
CHARLESTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY OF N. CHARLESTON POLICE
DEPARTMENT; DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, SC; SOG, of
Sheriff Al Cannon Detention Center; GOVERNOR NICKKI HALEY;
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH; G. WERBER BRYAN
PSYCHOLOGICAL HOSPITAL; DR. FERLANTO, MUSC; DR. GRISWALD,
MUSC; CRAFTS FARROW STATE HOSPITAL; SCDMH EMPLOYEES; SCDMH
STAFF; SCDMH SECURITY; DHEC; CHAMPUS; THE MEDICAL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA; JUST CARE INCORPORATED; GEO;
CHARLESTON COUNTY SOLICITORS OFFICE; UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT, various case numbers; FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, various case numbers; UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT,
various case numbers; SOUTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS,
various case numbers; DR. RUSSELL KEITH; J. BENNICE; THE
DEFENDANTS LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICYHOLDER; ALAN WILSON,
Attorney General of South Carolina; ALBERT PIERCE, Atty of
SCDMH; SOUTH CAROLINA TAXPAYERS/SC STATE TREASURY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (5:13-cv-02632-RMG)
Submitted: May 29, 2014 Decided: June 3, 2014
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher A. Odom, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Christopher A. Odom seeks to appeal the district
court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to
dismiss without prejudice his 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). The order Odom
seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order because it is possible for him
to cure the pleading deficiencies in the complaint that were
identified by the district court. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar
Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993)
(holding that order dismissing complaint without prejudice is
final and appealable only if “no amendment [in the complaint]
could cure the defects in the plaintiff’s case” (internal
quotation marks omitted)); see also Chao v. Rivendell Woods,
Inc., 415 F.3d 342, 345 (4th Cir. 2005) (explaining that, under
Domino Sugar, this court must “examine the appealability of a
dismissal without prejudice based on the specific facts of the
case in order to guard against piecemeal litigation and
repetitive appeals”). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because
3
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
4