Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Riddick v. US Dept of Justice, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed an appeal from Joseph Riddick of the district court's dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The appeals court found that because Riddick could have amended his complaint to assert a claim, the district court's dismissal without prejudice was not an appealable order. As such, the appeals court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-08-07 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-6088

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed an appeal from Joseph Riddick of the district court's dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The appeals court found that because Riddick could have amended his complaint to assert a claim, the district court's dismissal without prejudice was not an appealable order. As such, the appeals court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Riddick v. US Dept of Justice, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed an appeal from Joseph Riddick of the district court's dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The appeals court found that because Riddick could have amended his complaint to assert a claim, the district court's dismissal without prejudice was not an appealable order. As such, the appeals court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    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. 96-6088

    JOSEPH RIDDICK,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; US GOVERNMENT, Western District of Virginia; UNITED
    STATES OF AMERICA,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge.
    (CA-96-8-R)
    Submitted:

    July 25, 1996

    Decided:

    August 7, 1996

    Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Joseph Riddick, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing
    without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1988) complaint. Because
    Appellant could have amended his complaint to assert some claim,
    the district court's dismissal without prejudice is not appealable.
    See 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. 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