Thomas Switzer v. Town of Stanley, No. 10-2390 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2390 THOMAS L. SWITZER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. TOWN OF STANLEY; OFFICER BROWN; SERGEANT DEAN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (5:10-cv-00128-sgw) Submitted: February 10, 2011 Decided: February 16, 2011 Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas L. Switzer, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Thomas L. Switzer seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint against the Town of Stanley. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). court s dismissal appealable. 292, 10 of a complaint Generally, a district without prejudice is not See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that a plaintiff may not appeal the dismissal of his complaint without prejudice unless the grounds for dismissal clearly indicate that no amendment [to the complaint] could cure the defects in the plaintiff s case ) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, Switzer would be able to save his action by amending his complaint to comply with the district court s order. Therefore, the district court s dismissal of Switzer s complaint without prejudice is not an appelable final order. Accordingly, jurisdiction. we dismiss the appeal for lack of We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 2 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 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.