James Harris v. Harley Lappin, No. 11-6810 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6810 JAMES CEDRIC HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HARLEY LAPPIN, Director; HAROLD WATTS, National Coordinator Administrative Remedy; VANESSA P. ADAMS, Warden; SIMPSON, Dr., National RDAP Coordinator; ENGLE, Associate Warden; TIA PATRICK, RDAP Coordinator; A. C. BRO, Lieutenant, Defendants - Appellees, and FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendant. No. 11-7066 JAMES CEDRIC HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HARLEY LAPPIN, Director; HAROLD WATTS, National Coordinator Administrative Remedy; VANESSA P. ADAMS, Warden; SIMPSON, Dr., National RDAP Coordinator; ENGLE, Associate Warden; TIA PATRICK, RDAP Coordinator; A. C. BRO, Lieutenant, Defendants - Appellees, and FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate Judge; Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:09-cv-00276-HEH) Submitted: October 13, 2011 Decided: October 18, 2011 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Cedric Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, James Cedric Harris seeks to appeal the magistrate judge s order denying his motion to appoint counsel (No. 11-6810) and the district court s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his civil action without prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted (No. 11-7066). 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. 545-47 (1949). Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, [A] plaintiff may not appeal the dismissal of his complaint without prejudice unless the grounds for dismissal clearly indicate that no amendment [in the complaint] could cure the defects in the plaintiff s case. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1993) whether (internal a quotation dismissal marks without omitted). prejudice is In ascertaining reviewable in this court, we must determine whether the plaintiff could save his action by merely amending his complaint. Id. at 1066-67. The district court s grounds for dismissal of Harris civil action make clear that Harris could save his action by filing an amended complaint in the district court. the district court s and magistrate 3 judge s Accordingly, orders are not appealable. We jurisdiction. therefore dismiss these appeals for lack of 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 4
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.
