BLD
- 233 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 1 3

- 1 543

___________ MARY CATHERINE BAUR,

Appellant

v. KAREN WERTHEIMER; AMANDA LAWRENCE; DAVID A. CICOLA; TODD SEELING; PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF L ABOR & INDUSTRY

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 11

- cv - 01965 ) District Judge: Honorable C. Darnell Jones, II

____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Dismissal Due to a Jurisdictional Defect or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 May 9, 2013 Before: SCIRICA, HARDIMAN and GREENAWAY, JR. , Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: May 23, 2013 )

_________ OPINION

_________2

PER CURIAM Mary Catherine Baur , proceeding pro se , appeals from the District Court ‟s order entered January 25, 2013

. Because this appeal does not present a substantial question, we will summarily affirm. See Third Cir. LAR 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.
I.
In Ma rch 2011, Baur commenced a civil rights action against several of her former coworkers at the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry (L&I)

— namely, Karen Wertheimer, Amanda Lawrence, David Cicola, and Todd Seelig. In the complaint, Baur alleg ed

— amon g many other things

— that the defendants had interfered with her ability to obtain new work after she was termi nated from L&I in October 2006. Baur subsequently amended her complaint

. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. By order entered January 25, 2013, the District Court granted in part and denied in part the motion. The

c ourt first explained that many of Baur‟s claims had already been presented and ruled
up on in a separate civil rights suit that she had filed against the same defenda nts. See
Baur v. Crum , E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 08

- cv - 1222. According to the court, the only allegations that we re not (or could not have been) made in the previous suit were that the defendants : ( 1 ) requested that the Pennsylvania Civil Service Commission remo ve her name from the list of individuals eligible to serve as unemployment compensation referees ; and (2 ) mishandled inquiries from prospective employers

— including her current employer, the
I nternal R evenue S ervice . W ith respect to the first issue, th e Di strict Court determined3

that the amended complaint was devoid of any specific factual allegations against Wertheimer, Seelig, or Cicola , and found that this potential claim could proceed against defendant Lawrence only. The District Court then explained t hat, i n considering this allegation , along with Baur‟s allegation that the defendants had mishandled inquiries from prospective employers, it w as unable to determine precisely what causes of action
Baur intended to assert against which defendants, and what facts might potentially support such claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (a)

. Therefore, the District Court instructed
Baur to f ile , within 30 days, a sec ond amended complaint in s upport of these two potential claims. Rather than filing a second amended compl aint, Baur filed a notice of appeal.
II. Normally, an order that dismisses a complaint without prejudice is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See Borelli v. City of Reading , 532 F.2d 950, 951 (3d Cir. 1976) (per curiam) . Such an order becomes appealable, however , if the plaintiff “decl ares [her] intention to stand on [her] complaint” instead of amending
it. Id. at 952. W hen the District Court has provided a set amount of time within which to amend, and the plaintiff fails to do so, t he Court may conclude that the plaintiff elected to
stan d on her complaint. Batoff v. State Farm Ins. Co. , 977 F.2d 848, 851 n.5 (3d Cir 1992); see also Hagan v. Rogers , 570 F.3d 146, 151 (3d Cir. 2009) (concluding that plaintiffs stood on their complaint s because they filed notices of appeal rather than4

amending within specified time period); Frederico v. Home Depot , 507 F.3d 188, 193 (3d Cir. 2007) (same). Because Baur filed a notice of appeal instead of amending her complaint within the allotted 30 day s , and because her filings in this Court do not suggest that she will attempt to submit a second amended complaint, we conclude that Baur has elected to stand on her complaint. Therefore, we have jurisdiction over this appeal. Having determined that juris diction is proper, we will s ummarily affirm the District Court‟s order. First, we agree with the District Court that many of Baur‟s claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata because they were, or could have been, brought in her previous civil rig hts suit. See United States v. Athlone Indus. Inc. , 746 F.2d 977, 983 (3d Cir. 1984). We also agree with the District Court that Baur‟s amended complaint is devoid of any specific factual allegations against defendants Wertheimer, Seelig, or Cicola regar ding the Civil Service List claim, and that the remainder of the amended complaint

— as it stands

— does not meet the pleading requirements of Fede ral Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)

. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2 ) (requiring “a short and plain
statement of the cla im showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”); Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) ( explaining that a complaint does not suffice “if it tenders „naked assertion[s]‟ devoid of „further factual enhancement‟”) ( quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007)). Dismissal was therefore appropriate.
III.5

Accordingly, b ecause no substantial questi on is presented by this appeal, we will summarily affirm the District Court‟s judgment. See Third Cir. LAR 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.