History
  • No items yet
midpage
Ronald McClary v. Belquis Hopkins
670 F. App'x 829
| 4th Cir. | 2016
|
Check Treatment
|
Docket

*1 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald McClary, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. *2 PER CURIAM:

Ronald McClary seeks to appeal the district court's order and judgment dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. 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 deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by filing an amended complaint, we conclude that the order McClary 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 dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow McClary 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

Case Details

Case Name: Ronald McClary v. Belquis Hopkins
Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Date Published: Nov 22, 2016
Citation: 670 F. App'x 829
Docket Number: 16-7063
Court Abbreviation: 4th Cir.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.