Opinion
No. 18-6204
07-06-2018
EDDIE C. GOLSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DETECTIVE JAMES B. ANDERSON, of the Lexington County Sheriff's Department; LEXINGTON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, Individually and in their official capacities, Defendants - Appellees, and JAMES R. METTS; BRIAN P. STERLING; STEPHANIE WILLIS; MARY ANN E. SHEHA; NANCY J. SKRABA; ROBERT L. SINGLETON; BRIAN CURRENCE, Defendants.
Eddie C. Golson, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (3:15-cv-04319-MBS) Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eddie C. Golson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Eddie C. Golson appeals from the district court's order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012), confining his appeal to the portion of the order dismissing his claim for monetary damages pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) (holding that a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit for monetary damages is barred if prevailing in the action would necessarily require the plaintiff to prove the unlawfulness of his conviction or imprisonment). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Golson v. Anderson, No. 3:15-cv-04319-MBS (D.S.C. Feb. 5, 2018). 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.
We conclude that, although the complaint was dismissed without prejudice, the district court's order qualifies as a final, appealable order because Golson could not simply amend the complaint to cure the defect identified. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc'y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 629-30 (4th Cir. 2015) (holding that dismissal without prejudice is not appealable unless "the district court's grounds for dismissal clearly indicate that no amendment could cure the complaint's defects"). --------
AFFIRMED