Thomas L. Switzer v. Town of Stanley; Officer Brown; Sergeant Dean

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2390
THOMAS L. SWITZER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
TOWN OF STANLEY; OFFICER BROWN; SERGEANT DEAN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson,
District Judge. (5:10-cv-00128-sgw)
Submitted: February 10, 2011 Decided: February 16, 2011
Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas L. Switzer, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Thomas L. Switzer seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006)
complaint against the Town of Stanley. 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, 545-46 (1949). Generally, a district
court’s dismissal of a complaint without prejudice is not
appealable. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union
292, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that “a
plaintiff may not appeal the dismissal of his complaint without
prejudice unless the grounds for dismissal clearly indicate that
no amendment [to the complaint] could cure the defects in the
plaintiff’s case”) (alteration in original) (internal quotation
marks omitted). In this case, Switzer would be able to save his
action by amending his complaint to comply with the district
court’s order. Therefore, the district court’s dismissal of
Switzer’s complaint without prejudice is not an appelable final
order. 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

-- 2 of 3 --

3
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --