Erin Proctor v. Israel Hamilton, No. 19-7605 (4th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-7605 ERIN PROCTOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ISRAEL HAMILTON, Warden; JOHN WALRATH, Acting Regional Administrator; HEARING OFFICER MAYO, Hearing Officer; J.D. FAIRMAN, Correctional Officer/C.O.; E. WITT, Grievance Counselor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cv-00275-TSE-MSN) Submitted: March 9, 2020 Decided: March 17, 2020 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Erin Dean Proctor, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Erin Proctor seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2018) action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2018). Specifically, the district court concluded that Proctor failed to state what liberty or property interest he possessed and was deprived of as a result of the alleged adverse decisions. See Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005) (“The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause protects persons against deprivations of life, liberty, or property; and those who seek to invoke its procedural protections must establish that one of these interests is at stake.”). We 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 grounds for the district court’s order “did not clearly preclude amendment,” id. at 630, we conclude that it is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand to the district court with instructions to allow Proctor another opportunity to amend the complaint. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED AND REMANDED 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.
