Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06657/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06657-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6657

PATRICK CHRISTIAN,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

COMMONWEALTH STATE OF VIRGINIA,

 Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Senior

District Judge. (3:15-cv-00205-JRS)

Submitted: August 27, 2015 Decided: September 1, 2015

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patrick Christian, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6657 Doc: 16 Filed: 09/01/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Patrick Christian seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing without prejudice his civil complaint under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii) (2012) for failure to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted and because the complaint 

was otherwise frivolous. This court may exercise jurisdiction 

only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain 

interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 

337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949). “Dismissals without prejudice are 

generally not appealable final orders.” In re GNC Corp., 789 

F.3d 505, 511 n.3 (4th Cir. 2015). Because the deficiencies 

identified by the district court may be remedied by the filing 

of an amended complaint, we conclude that the order Christian 

seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable 

interlocutory or collateral order. 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 

Appeal: 15-6657 Doc: 16 Filed: 09/01/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6657 Doc: 16 Filed: 09/01/2015 Pg: 3 of 3