Katherine Robinson v. Chesapeake Bank of Maryland, No. 17-1217 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1217 KATHERINE B. ROBINSON; DANA B. WILLIAMS, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. CHESAPEAKE BANK OF MARYLAND; PROCTOR FINANCIAL, INC., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District Judge. (1:16-cv-04119-CCB) Submitted: June 20, 2017 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Katherine B. Robinson, Dana B. Williams, Appellants Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Decided: June 22, 2017 PER CURIAM: Katherine B. Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice her civil complaint against Defendants after Robinson failed to comply with the district court’s prior order directing Robinson to supplement her complaint. 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, 545-46 (1949). Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by the filing of an amended complaint, the order Robinson 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, 106667 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. * 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 because the court previously afforded Robinson the chance to supplement her complaint. Cf. Goode, 807 F.3d at 62930. 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.