Tracey Grady v. Susan White, No. 16-7722 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7722 TRACEY TERRELL GRADY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SUSAN R. WHITE; BURKAMP, Case Manager; CAUSBY, Sergeant, Lead Investigator; BARKER, Unit Manager; QUINN, Sergeant; ODOM, Officer; BRYAN, Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (5:15-cv-00130-FDW) Submitted: April 20, 2017 Decided: April 24, 2017 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tracey Terrell Grady, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tracey Terrell Grady seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint, as amended, for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2012). 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). Because the pleading deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by the filing of an amended complaint, we conclude that the order Grady seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. * We deny Grady’s motion to reverse the district court’s ruling. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED * We do not remand this matter to the district court, though, because the court previously afforded Grady the chance to amend his complaint. Cf. Goode, 807 F.3d at 629-30. 2

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.