Opinion
No. 16-6193
06-23-2016
MR. EDDIE C. GOLSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAMES B. ANDERSON; JAMES R. METTS; BRIAN P. STERLING; STEPHANIE WILLIS; MARY ANN E. SHEHA; NANCY J. SKRABA; ROBERT L. SINGLETON; BRIAN CURRENCE, Defendants - Appellees.
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UNPUBLISHED Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.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 SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed and remanded with instructions by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his civil action for failing to plead, as to several counts, sufficient facts to state a cognizable claim for relief. 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 if "the plaintiff could save his action by merely amending his complaint." Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Where a 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. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc'y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 624-25 (4th Cir. 2015).
The order Golson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Golson's motion to amend his informal brief, dismiss the appeal, and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Golson leave to file an amended complaint. 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 WITH INSTRUCTIONS