Case Name: Kevin SPENCE, Appellant v. WATER REVENUE BUREAU, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-02
Citations: 237 F. App'x 751
Docket Number: No. 07-1084
Parties: Kevin SPENCE, Appellant v. WATER REVENUE BUREAU, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA.
Judges: Before: SLOVITER, CHAGARES and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 237
Pages: 751–752

Head Matter:
Kevin SPENCE, Appellant v. WATER REVENUE BUREAU, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA.
No. 07-1084.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) June 21, 2007.
Filed July 2, 2007.
Kevin Spence, Philadelphia, PA, pro se.
Before: SLOVITER, CHAGARES and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Kevin Spence, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissing his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The District Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice and gave Spence an opportunity to file an amended complaint. Spence chose to commence the instant appeal rather than file an amended complaint, thereby expressing his intention to stand on his complaint as filed. The order being appealed is therefore final and appealable. See Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950, 951-52 (3d Cir.1976).
We agree with the District Court that the complaint is inadequate under the notice pleading requirements of Fed. R.Civ.P. 8(a). As best we can tell from the cryptic statements in the complaint, the instant suit arises from a billing dispute with the Water Revenue Bureau. However, despite affording Spence the leeway properly allowed pro se litigants, we are unable to discern the factual basis for his claims or the legal theory on which he relies. Accordingly, we will dismiss the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).