Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 10 views

    Howell v. Lee, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Richard Howell appealed the district court's dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal as the district court's dismissal order was not a final order because Howell could amend his complaint to allege sufficient facts to state a claim. As the dismissal was without prejudice, Howell could proceed with the action by amending his complaint.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Howell v. Lee, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views2 pages
    Richard Howell appealed the district court's dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal as the district court's dismissal order was not a final order because Howell could amend his complaint to allege sufficient facts to state a claim. As the dismissal was without prejudice, Howell could proceed with the action by amending his complaint.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-12-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-7433

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Richard Howell appealed the district court's dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal as the district court's dismissal order was not a final order because Howell could amend his complaint to allege sufficient facts to state a claim. As the dismissal was without prejudice, Howell could proceed with the action by amending his complaint.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    10 views2 pages

    Howell v. Lee, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Richard Howell appealed the district court's dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal as the district court's dismissal order was not a final order because Howell could amend his complaint to allege sufficient facts to state a claim. As the dismissal was without prejudice, Howell could proceed with the action by amending his complaint.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 02-7433

    RICHARD A. HOWELL,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    JACK LEE, Warden; PRISONERS UNKNOWN,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
    Judge. (CA-02-795-7)

    Submitted:

    December 16, 2002

    Decided:

    December 20, 2002

    Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Richard A. Howell, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Richard

    A.

    Howell

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    orders

    dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint without prejudice


    pursuant

    to

    28

    U.S.C.

    1915A(b)(1)

    reconsideration of that order.

    (2000)

    and

    denying

    Because Howell may be able to

    proceed with this action by amending his complaint to allege


    sufficient facts to state a claim, the dismissal order is not final
    and thus is not subject to appellate review.

    See Domino Sugar

    Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th
    Cir. 1993). We therefore dismiss the appeal. 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

    You might also like