Opinion

Sabrina Renee Brown v. Toneka Thornton

  • 690 F. App'x 846
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
May 30, 2017
Status
Unpublished
On the bench
Motz, Thacker, Harris
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 3.7%

The opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1318

SABRINA RENEE BROWN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

TONEKA THORNTON; CAROLYN ELIZABETH BLACK; ADELE LAURIE

ADKINS, a/k/a Pop Star; STEPHANIE ALBRIGHT; KARLINE MOSLEY;

FELECIA RENEE GRAY; NAZLAH UNIQUE THORNTON; MONICA

DUVALL CATALPA; NEKEZIAH ROBERTSON,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at

Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:17-cv-00046-RAJ-DEM)

Submitted: May 25, 2017 Decided: May 30, 2017

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded with instructions by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sabrina Renee Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sabrina Renee Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her civil

complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2012) without prejudice for failure to state a

claim. 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).

Because it is possible that Brown could cure the defects in her complaint through

amendment, the order she seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable

interlocutory or collateral order. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619,

623-25, 628-30 (4th Cir. 2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,

10 F.3d 1064, 1066–67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Brown to

file an amended complaint. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

2

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.