Latory Shanon Middleton v. John Emerson; Kassi B. Sandifer

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-2288
LATORY SHANON MIDDLETON,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
JOHN EMERSON; KASSI B. SANDIFER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:11-cv-02535-DCN)
Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 19, 2012
Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Latory Shanon Middleton, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Latory Shanon Middleton filed a document in the
district court that she captioned “Notice of Removal,” but that
otherwise appeared to be a complaint alleging employment
discrimination in violation of federal law. The document named
two individuals as defendants. The magistrate judge, noting
that Middleton was a plaintiff in a pending state proceeding,
correctly pointed out that under the applicable federal
statutes, a plaintiff may not remove a proceeding to federal
court. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a), 1446(a) (2006). The magistrate
judge then observed that, construing Middleton’s filing as a
complaint of employment discrimination under federal law, the
filing failed to demonstrate exhaustion of administrative
remedies or to name Middleton’s employer as defendant. The
magistrate judge therefore recommended dismissing the complaint
without prejudice.
Middleton, informed of the need to file objections to
the magistrate judge’s report, made a timely filing which,
although fairly general, did provide some evidence that she may
have exhausted administrative remedies. The district court,
after a de novo review, adopted the report of the magistrate
judge and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. Middleton
seeks to appeal.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Because the deficiencies in the complaint identified
by the magistrate judge could be remedied by the filing of an
amended complaint, we conclude that the district court’s order
is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
collateral order. 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

-- 3 of 3 --