James Lester Roudabush, Jr. v. D. Lawhorne; F. Milano

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7751
JAMES LESTER ROUDABUSH, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
D. LAWHORNE; F. MILANO,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
SERGEANT F. MENSAH; STEARNS, Chief; G. HUNTER; C. M. KYLTON;
ERVIN; GRAHAM; HYLTON; J. CAREY; A. ANDERSON; K. PEDERSEN;
LIEUTENANT REA,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:15-cv-00083-RBS-RJK)
Submitted: April 24, 2017 Decided: May 4, 2017
Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed and remanded with instructions by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
James Lester Roudabush, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alexander Francuzenko, Philip Corliss
Krone, Lee B. Warren, COOK CRAIG & FRANCUZENKO, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
James Lester Roudabush, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s November 16,
2015 order dismissing a portion of the claims raised in his civil action pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2012) and dismissing without prejudice his claims concerning
law library access and medical treatment for high blood pressure, May 13, 2016 order
denying his motion for summary judgment as premature, and November 29, 2016 order
granting summary judgment to Appellees Lawhorne and Milano. 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).
“An order dismissing a complaint without prejudice is not an appealable final
order under § 1291 if the plaintiff could save his action by merely amending his
complaint.” Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, 807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Where the district court dismisses an action for
failure to plead sufficient facts in the complaint, we lack appellate jurisdiction because
the plaintiff could amend the complaint to cure the pleading deficiency. Id. at 623-25.
The orders Roudabush seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable
interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and remand the
case to the district court with instructions to allow Roudabush leave to amend his claims
concerning law library access and medical treatment for high blood pressure. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

-- 3 of 4 --

4
presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

-- 4 of 4 --