Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01562/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01562-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Bernstein
Appellee
Belinda K. Conaway
Appellee
Jody Eveland

Sherry Ray Eveland
Appellant
Law Firm of Rollins & Dellmyer, PA
Appellee
Leonard E. Wilson Law Office
Appellee
Andruis D. Rogers
Appellee
State of Maryland
Appellee
William Riddle Law Firm
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1562

SHERRY RAY EVELAND, In the Matter of; Direct Legal 

Descendant of the Estate Legal Executor/Personal 

Representative of James Ray Charles Deceased Father,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

JODY EVELAND, Senior, Son-In-Law of James Ray Charles 

Deceased; JODY EVELAND, Junior, Son-In-law of James Ray 

Charles Deceased,

Plaintiffs,

v.

STATE OF MARYLAND, Through its Legal Representative Brian 

Frosh Esq.; LEONARD E. WILSON LAW OFFICE, & Leonard Wilson 

Attorney Alleged; ANDRUIS D. ROGERS; WILLIAM RIDDLE LAW 

FIRM; LAW FIRM OF ROLLINS & DELLMYER, PA; CHARLES BERNSTEIN, 

Alleged Judge; BELINDA K. CONAWAY, Esq.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District 

Judge. (1:16-cv-00762-CCB)

Submitted: August 18, 2016 Decided: August 22, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 16-1562 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/22/2016 Pg: 1 of 4
2

Sherry Ray Eveland, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1562 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/22/2016 Pg: 2 of 4
3

PER CURIAM: 

Sherry Ray Eveland seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing without prejudice her complaint and the 

district court’s margin orders denying various postjudgment 

motions. 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-

46 (1949). 

An order dismissing a complaint without prejudice is not an 

appealable final order if “the plaintiff could save [her] action 

by merely amending the complaint.” Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar 

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

Where a district court dismisses an action for failure to plead 

sufficient facts in the complaint, we lack appellate 

jurisdiction because the plaintiff could amend the complaint to 

cure the pleading deficiency. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid 

Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 624 (4th Cir. 2015). 

Accordingly, we dismiss Eveland’s appeal and remand the 

case to the district court with instructions to allow Eveland to 

file an amended complaint. We deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis and deny the motion for mandamus relief. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

Appeal: 16-1562 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/22/2016 Pg: 3 of 4
4

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED AND REMANDED

Appeal: 16-1562 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/22/2016 Pg: 4 of 4