Makeda Haile v. Kaiser Permanente, No. 19-2251 (4th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-2251 MAKEDA HAILE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KAISER PERMANENTE TYSONS CORNER, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:19-cv-01330-LMB-TCB) Submitted: March 10, 2020 Decided: March 12, 2020 Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Makeda Haile, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Makeda Haile seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice her civil complaint alleging employment discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2018). This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2018), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2018); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). “An order dismissing a complaint without prejudice is not an appealable final order under § 1291 if ‘the plaintiff could save [the] action by merely amending [the] complaint.’” Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993)). Because the district court dismissed Haile’s complaint without prejudice to her filing an amended complaint, we conclude that the court’s order is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 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 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.