Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-01441/USCOURTS-ca4-19-01441-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Javid Bayandor
Appellant
Board of Visitors

Commonwealth of Virginia

Thanassis Rikakis
Appellee
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1441

JAVID BAYANDOR,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY; 

THANASSIS RIKAKIS, in his official capacity as Provost of Virginia Polytechnic 

Institute and State University and in his individual capacity,

 Defendants - Appellees,

and

BOARD OF VISITORS, Virginia Polytechnic Institute And State University; 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

 Defendants.

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

Roanoke. Elizabeth Kay Dillon, District Judge. (7:18-cv-00026-EKD)

Submitted: January 29, 2020 Decided: March 17, 2020

Before THACKER, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-1441 Doc: 26 Filed: 03/17/2020 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Thomas E. Strelka, STRELKA LAW OFFICE, PC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. 

Mark R. Herring, Attorney General, Cynthia V. Bailey, Deputy Attorney General, 

Deborah A. Love, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Toby J. Heytens, Solicitor General, 

Michelle S. Kallen, Deputy Solicitor General, Martine E. Cicconi, Deputy Solicitor 

General, Zachary R. Glubiak, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, 

Richmond, Virginia; Kay Heidbreder, University Legal Counsel, M. Hudson McClanahan, 

Associate University Legal Counsel, VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE & STATE 

UNIVERSITY, Blacksburg, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-1441 Doc: 26 Filed: 03/17/2020 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Javid Bayandor appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint in part 

with prejudice and in part without prejudice. This court 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 his action by merely 

amending his 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)). Here, the district court explicitly provided Bayandor with 

an opportunity to amend his complaint evidencing an intent that its order of dismissal was 

not intended to end the case. Thus, we conclude that the court’s order is neither a final 

order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral 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 before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED AND REMANDED

USCA4 Appeal: 19-1441 Doc: 26 Filed: 03/17/2020 Pg: 3 of 3