David Campbell v. Stonemor Partners, LP, No. 17-1925 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1925 DAVID A. CAMPBELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STONEMOR PARTNERS, LP, Defendant - Appellee, and PAULA HARRIS, RVP; ANITA DEEB, Area Manager; LAUREN BAILEY, HR Compliance Manager; GINA MACK, Director Benefits & Administration, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:17-cv-00407-HEH) Submitted: December 19, 2017 Decided: December 21, 2017 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. David A. Campbell, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David Campbell seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his complaint for failure to allege facts sufficient to establish that venue was proper in the Eastern District of Virginia. 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 Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949). Because the district court identified a deficiency that Campbell may remedy by filing an amended complaint, we conclude that the order Campbell seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we deny Campbell’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Campbell to amend his complaint. Goode, 807 F.3d at 630. 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 AND REMANDED 2

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.