Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-01746/USCOURTS-ca4-07-01746-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Drug Enforcement Administration
Appellee
Elbert John Benjamin Rutherford
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1746

ELBERT JOHN BENJAMIN RUTHERFORD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (6:07-cv-01871-HMH)

Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 17, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion.

Elbert John Benjamin Rutherford, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-1746 Doc: 12 Filed: 12/17/2007 Pg: 1 of 3
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Elbert Rutherford seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissing his civil action without prejudice. This court may

exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291

(2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan

Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). Because the deficiencies

identified by the district court may be remedied by the filing of

a complaint that names individual defendants, we conclude that this

portion of the order Rutherford seeks to appeal is neither a final

order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See

Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Worker’s Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064,

1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993) (a dismissal without prejudice is generally

not appealable). A dismissal without prejudice, however, could be

final if no amendment to the complaint would cure the defect in the

plaintiff’s case. Id. at 1066-67. Therefore the portion of the

order appealed stating defects in this case that could not be cured

by amendment to the complaint is appealable and this court has

jurisdiction. Those claims are affirmed on the reasoning stated by

the district court. Rutherford v. Drug Enforcement Admin, No.

6:07-cv-01871-MHM (D.S.C. July 27, 2007).

Appeal: 07-1746 Doc: 12 Filed: 12/17/2007 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED IN PART;

AFFIRMED IN PART

Appeal: 07-1746 Doc: 12 Filed: 12/17/2007 Pg: 3 of 3