Background
James R. Watson, Jr., proceeding pro se, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Doris Poulos O’Hara and the Honorable H. S. Deberry, IV, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. The Fourth Circuit’s brief opinion does not describe Watson’s allegations or the district court’s reasons for dismissal.
The district court accepted a magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. It did not grant Watson leave to amend. The court later denied Watson’s motion for reconsideration, and Watson appealed both orders.
The Court’s Holding
In an unpublished per curiam opinion, the Fourth Circuit affirmed both orders. After reviewing the record, the panel concluded that there was no reversible error and relied on the reasons given in the district court’s November 12 and December 4, 2025 orders.
The panel also explained that it had appellate jurisdiction despite the dismissal being without prejudice. Under Britt v. DeJoy, the dismissal was a final decision because the district court dismissed the complaint without providing leave to amend. The court decided the appeal without oral argument because the written materials adequately presented the facts and legal issues and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Key Takeaways
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal without prejudice of Watson’s pro se § 1983 complaint.
- The court also affirmed the denial of Watson’s motion for reconsideration after finding no reversible error.
- A dismissal without prejudice is final and appealable in the Fourth Circuit when the district court does not provide leave to amend.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the Fourth Circuit’s bright-line approach to finality: a dismissal without prejudice may be immediately appealable when the district court closes the case without granting leave to amend. Litigants should therefore focus on whether leave to amend was provided, not merely on the “without prejudice” label.
Because the opinion is unpublished and contains little discussion of the underlying claims, it offers limited guidance on the substantive requirements for § 1983 actions. Unpublished Fourth Circuit opinions are not binding precedent in the circuit.