UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6810
JAMES CEDRIC HARRIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HARLEY LAPPIN, Director; HAROLD WATTS, National Coordinator
Administrative Remedy; VANESSA P. ADAMS, Warden; SIMPSON,
Dr., National RDAP Coordinator; ENGLE, Associate Warden;
TIA PATRICK, RDAP Coordinator; A. C. BRO, Lieutenant,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Defendant.
No. 11-7066
JAMES CEDRIC HARRIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HARLEY LAPPIN, Director; HAROLD WATTS, National Coordinator
Administrative Remedy; VANESSA P. ADAMS, Warden; SIMPSON,
Dr., National RDAP Coordinator; ENGLE, Associate Warden;
TIA PATRICK, RDAP Coordinator; A. C. BRO, Lieutenant,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Defendant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate
Judge; Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:09-cv-00276-HEH)
Submitted: October 13, 2011 Decided: October 18, 2011
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Cedric Harris, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, James Cedric Harris
seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying his motion
to appoint counsel (No. 11-6810) and the district court’s order
adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing his civil action without prejudice for failure to
state a claim on which relief may be granted (No. 11-7066).
This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and
collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541,
545-47 (1949). “[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.” Domino Sugar Corp. v.
Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir.
1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). 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.” Id. at 1066-67.
The district court’s grounds for dismissal of Harris’
civil action make clear that Harris could save his action by
filing an amended complaint in the district court. Accordingly,
the district court’s and magistrate judge’s orders are not
3
appealable. We therefore dismiss these appeals 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
4