`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
`
`
`No. 21-2199
`
`
`RICHARD COLEMAN,
`
`
`
`
`
`STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; FRANKLIN COUNTY, NC; AMANDA
`STEVENSON, Judge and Individually; ARKOFA AUTO SALES; R. KEITH
`SHACKELFORD, Attorney,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff - Appellant,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Defendants - Appellees.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
`Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:21-cv-00399-RAJ-LRL)
`
`
`
`
`Submitted: January 20, 2022
`
`
`
`Decided: January 24, 2022
`
`
`
`Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
`
`
`Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
`
`
`Richard Coleman, Appellant Pro Se.
`
`
`Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PER CURIAM:
`
`
`
`
`
`Richard Coleman appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action
`
`without prejudice for improper venue.∗ We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
`
`error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Coleman v. State
`
`of North Carolina, No. 2:21-cv-00399-RAJ-LRL (E.D. Va. Sept. 27, 2021). 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`∗ We conclude that the district court’s order dismissing Coleman’s action without
`prejudice is an appealable final order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local
`Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that dismissal without prejudice
`may be final if no amendment to complaint can cure defect in plaintiff’s complaint).
`2
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
