Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-01545/USCOURTS-ca4-14-01545-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Iva Robbins
Appellant
Jim Rothrock
Appellee
Virginia Department of Aging and Rehabilitative Services
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1545

IVA ROBBINS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF AGING AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES; 

JIM ROTHROCK, Commissioner,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District 

Judge. (1:14-cv-00626-LO-TCB)

Submitted: January 22, 2015 Decided: January 26, 2015

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Iva Robbins, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Brown Beckner, OFFICE OF 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1545 Doc: 32 Filed: 01/26/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Iva Robbins appeals the district court’s orders

denying, without prejudice, her motion for appointment of

counsel, denying her motion for a temporary restraining order, 

and dismissing, without prejudice,* her complaint seeking 

injunctive relief against Defendants. Limiting our review to 

the issues raised in Robbins’ informal brief, see 4th Cir. R. 

34(b), we affirm the district court’s orders. See Robbins v. 

Va. Dep’t of Aging & Rehab. Servs., No. 1:14-cv-00626-LO-TCB 

(E.D. Va. May 30, 2014; June 6, 2014). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 

* Generally, dismissals without prejudice are not appealable. 

See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 

1064, 1066 (4th Cir. 1993). However, a dismissal without 

prejudice could be final if no amendment to the complaint could 

cure the defects in the plaintiff’s case. See id. at 1066-67. 

We find that the district court’s order is a final, appealable 

order because the defects in Robbins’ complaint—failure to 

exhaust administrative remedies—must be cured by something more 

than an amendment to the complaint. See id.

Appeal: 14-1545 Doc: 32 Filed: 01/26/2015 Pg: 2 of 2