Clemmon Woodard v. Sheriff Donnie Harrison, No. 11-6626 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6626 CLEMMON AUGUSTA WOODARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SHERIFF DONNIE HARRISON; MEDICAL STAFF OF WAKE COUNTY JAIL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:08-ct-03177-D) Submitted: October 13, 2011 Decided: October 17, 2011 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clemmon Augusta Woodard, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Clemmon Augusta Woodard seeks to appeal the district court s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint without prejudice because he failed to comply with the district court s order to particularize his complaint. 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, 1067 (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). make clear that However, . . . if the grounds of the dismissal 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, Woodard may be able to save his action by amending his complaint to comply with the district court s order to particularize. Therefore, the district court s dismissal of Woodard s complaint without prejudice is not an appealable final order. lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 2 materials before the court and argument would not air the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.