Patrick Christian v. Commonwealth State of Virginia, No. 15-6657 (4th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6657 PATRICK CHRISTIAN, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH STATE OF VIRGINIA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Senior District Judge. (3:15-cv-00205-JRS) Submitted: August 27, 2015 Decided: September 1, 2015 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrick Christian, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Patrick Christian seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his civil complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii) (2012) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and because the complaint was otherwise frivolous. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949). “Dismissals without prejudice are generally not appealable final orders.” F.3d 505, 511 n.3 (4th Cir. 2015). In re GNC Corp., 789 Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by the filing of an amended complaint, we conclude that the order Christian seeks to appeal is neither a final interlocutory or collateral order. order nor an appealable Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, jurisdiction. we dismiss the appeal for lack of We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 2 before this court and argument would not aid 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.