Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01708/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01708-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Frizzell Carrell Woodson
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1698

FRIZZELL CARRELL WOODSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 16-1704

FRIZZELL CARRELL WOODSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 16-1706

FRIZZELL CARRELL WOODSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appeal: 16-1708 Doc: 14 Filed: 09/16/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 16-1708

FRIZZELL CARRELL WOODSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:16-cv-00233-HEH; 3:16-cv-00234-HEH; 3:16-cv-00235-HEH; 

3:16-cv-00236-HEH)

Submitted: September 13, 2016 Decided: September 16, 2016

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frizzell Carrell Woodson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1708 Doc: 14 Filed: 09/16/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Frizzell Carrell Woodson seeks 

to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing without prejudice 

his complaints for failing to plead sufficient facts to state a 

claim. 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 his action by 

merely amending his 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 deny Woodson’s 

motions for default judgment and to deconsolidate the appeals, 

dismiss the appeals, and remand the cases to the district court 

with instructions to allow Woodson to file amended complaints. 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

Appeal: 16-1708 Doc: 14 Filed: 09/16/2016 Pg: 3 of 3