Opinion ID: 3013927
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Order dated February 25, 2003

Text: Motions to dismiss without prejudice are generally not final and appealable so long as the plaintiff is permitted to refile the complaint upon remedy of the deficiency. Ahmed v. Dragovich, 297 F.3d 201, 207 (3d Cir. 2002); Redmond v. Gill, 352 F.3d 801, 803 (3d Cir. 2003). In its order dated February 25, 2003, the District Court granted the School District’s motion to dismiss without prejudice and with permission to refile all claims with the leave of the court by May 22, 2003. Accordingly, the order was not appealable, as Schumacher could have refiled her complaint in the permitted time period and obtained leave of court as required by the order. Instead, Schumacher directly appealed the order to this Court. The District Court’s order was not final, and we do not have appellate jurisdiction.1 1 Even if we had appellate jurisdiction, Schumacher has not provided us an adequate record to support her claim that her complaints were inappropriately dismissed. Salazar v. Atlantic Sun, 881 F.2d 73, 79 (3d Cir. 1989). She has not provided a transcript of the November 22, 2002 hearing at which the District Court dismissed her complaint, so the District Court’s reasoning would be unavailable for review. 4