Justin Kramer v. Virginia State Court System, No. 13-1210 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1210 JUSTIN S. KRAMER, individually and as natural parent of A.M.K., and on behalf of parents similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. VIRGINIA STATE COURT SYSTEM; ANGELA M. KRAMER, individually and as custodial parent for the State of Virginia; JOHN BLADES, individually; TAMMIE BLADES, individually; BRIAN R. MOORE, individually and as attorney for Angela M. Kramer; MOSBY GARLAND PERROW, III, individually and as Circuit Court Judge-City of Lynchburg; PHILLIPS, MORRISON, JOHNSON & FERRELL, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, employer of Attorney Brian R. Moore; HENRY C. DEVENING, individually and as former attorney for plaintiff; CITY OF LYNCHBURG; STATE OF VIRGINIA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (6:13-cv-00007-NKM) Submitted: June 20, 2013 Decided: June 25, 2013 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Justin S. Kramer, Appellant Pro Se. John David Gilbody, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Justin S. Kramer appeals the district court s order dismissing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). * We have without reviewed the prejudice record his and civil find action no for reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. (W.D. Kramer v. Va. State Court Sys., No. 6:13-cv-00007-NKM Va. Jan. 30, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * While dismissals without prejudice generally are interlocutory and not appealable, a dismissal without prejudice may be final if no amendment to the complaint can cure the defects in the plaintiff s case. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). On the available record, we conclude that the defects identified by the district court cannot be cured by an amendment to the complaint and that the order therefore is appealable. 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.