Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07605/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07605-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7605

ERIN PROCTOR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ISRAEL HAMILTON, Warden; JOHN WALRATH, Acting Regional 

Administrator; HEARING OFFICER MAYO, Hearing Officer; J.D. FAIRMAN,

Correctional Officer/C.O.; E. WITT, Grievance Counselor,

Defendants - Appellees.

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

Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cv-00275-TSE-MSN)

Submitted: March 9, 2020 Decided: March 17, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Erin Dean Proctor, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7605 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/17/2020 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Erin Proctor seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice 

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2018) action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2018). Specifically, 

the district court concluded that Proctor failed to state what liberty or property interest he 

possessed and was deprived of as a result of the alleged adverse decisions. See Wilkinson 

v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005) (“The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause 

protects persons against deprivations of life, liberty, or property; and those who seek to 

invoke its procedural protections must establish that one of these interests is at stake.”). 

We may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2018), and 

certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2018); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); 

Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). “An order dismissing 

a complaint without prejudice is not an appealable final order under § 1291 if ‘the plaintiff 

could save [the] action by merely amending [the] complaint.’” Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal 

Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar 

Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993)). Because the grounds 

for the district court’s order “did not clearly preclude amendment,” id. at 630, we conclude 

that it is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand to the district 

court with instructions to allow Proctor another opportunity to amend the complaint. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7605 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/17/2020 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED AND REMANDED

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7605 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/17/2020 Pg: 3 of 3