April McDaniel v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., No. 08-1860 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1860 APRIL MCDANIEL, Plaintiff Appellant, v. GREYHOUND LINES, INC.; LISA BORROW, Manager at Greyhound; TOMMY SCHEWL, Area Manager at Greyhound; JANE DOE, a/k/a Leslie, Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:08-cv-00130-FDW-CH) Submitted: December 11, 2008 Decided: December 15, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. April McDaniel, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Douglas McKnight, Robert Allen Sar, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: April dismissing McDaniel without appeals prejudice the her district civil court s complaint order alleging employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. The court specifically dismissed the action noting that because it had not ruled on the merits of the compliant and jurisdiction was and dismissing personal it for lack jurisdiction, of subject McDaniel was refile her complaint after curing these defects. without prejudice reasons stated is for not the reviewable dismissal by the clearly matter free to A dismissal court unless disclose amendment to the complaint could cure its defects. that the no See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). court properly found In the present case, the district that McDaniel failed to allege facts establishing subject matter and personal jurisdiction. Because McDaniel could possibly cure these complaint, we dismiss this appeal. defects Id. by amending her We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 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.