Gary Gaskins v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 12-1930 (4th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1930 GARY L. GASKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:12-cv-00367-MSD-DEM) Submitted: November 13, 2012 Decided: November 15, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary L. Gaskins, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gary L. Gaskins seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing without prejudice his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2006) for failing to state a cognizable claim. court may exercise jurisdiction only over final This 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). The order Gaskins seeks to appeal is neither a final order an nor appealable interlocutory or collateral order because it is possible for him to cure the pleading deficiencies in the court. complaint that were identified by the district See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066 67 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that a dismissal without prejudice is not appealable unless it is clear that no amendment to plaintiff s the case complaint could (internal cure quotation the defects marks in the omitted)); see also Chao v. Rivendell Woods, Inc., 415 F.3d 342, 345 (4th Cir. 2005) (explaining examine based on against the the that, under appealability specific piecemeal Domino of facts a of litigation Sugar, dismissal the and case this court without in order repetitive must prejudice to guard appeals ). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. dispense with oral argument because 2 the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 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.