Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-01538/USCOURTS-ca4-10-01538-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Calvin Ruffin Mallory
Appellant
Meghan McGuire Central State Hospital
Appellee
Dr. Poindexter
Appellee
Virginia Department of Behavior Health and Development Services
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1538

CALVIN RUFFIN MALLORY,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

DR. POINDEXTER; MEGHAN MCGUIRE CENTRAL STATE HOSPITAL; 

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF BEHAVIOR HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT 

SERVICES,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior 

District Judge. (3:10-cv-00282-ROW)

Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 5, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit 

Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin Ruffin Mallory, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-1538 Doc: 5 Filed: 08/05/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Calvin Ruffin Mallory seeks to appeal the district 

court’s dismissal of his complaint without prejudice because he

failed to comply with the district court’s October 4, 2002, 

order enjoining him from filing pleadings that do not comport 

with certain requirements, such as legibility and submission on 

the proper forms. 

Generally, a district court’s dismissal of a complaint 

without prejudice is not appealable. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. 

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

1993) (holding that “a plaintiff may not appeal the dismissal of 

his complaint without prejudice unless the grounds for dismissal 

clearly indicate that no amendment [in the complaint] could cure 

the defects in the plaintiff’s case”) (alteration in original) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). However, “if the grounds of 

the dismissal make clear that no amendment could cure the 

defects in the plaintiff's case, the order dismissing the 

complaint is final in fact and [appellate jurisdiction exists].” 

Id. at 1066 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). 

In this case, Mallory may be able to save his action 

by amending his complaint to comply with the district court’s 

2002 order. Therefore, the district court’s dismissal of 

Mallory’s complaint without prejudice is not an appealable final 

Appeal: 10-1538 Doc: 5 Filed: 08/05/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 10-1538 Doc: 5 Filed: 08/05/2010 Pg: 3 of 3