Pamela Gordon v. James Madison University, No. 13-2218 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2218 PAMELA J. GORDON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAMES MADISON UNIVERSITY, Virginia, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Michael F. Urbanski, District Judge. (5:12-cv-00124-MFU-BWC) Submitted: January 21, 2014 Decided: January 23, 2014 Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pamela J. Gordon, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Nicholas Regnery, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Pamela J. Gordon seeks to appeal the district court s order adopting the magistrate judge s recommendation and dismissing without prejudice her complaint alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Gordon seeks appealable possible Corp., U.S. 541, 545-47 appeal is neither interlocutory or collateral for to 337 her to cure the a pleading (1949). final order The order order nor an it is because deficiencies in complaint that were identified by the district court. the Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that order dismissing complaint without prejudice is final and appealable only if no amendment [in the complaint] could cure the defects in the plaintiff s case (internal Rivendell Woods, quotation Inc., marks 415 omitted)); F.3d 342, 345 see also (4th Chao Cir. v. 2005) (explaining that, under Domino Sugar, this court must examine the appealability of a dismissal without prejudice based on the specific facts of the case in order to guard against piecemeal litigation and repetitive appeals ). 2 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 before this 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.
