Summary
concluding that deficiencies in Martin's complaint could be remedied by filing an amended complaint and dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction
Summary of this case from Martin v. DuffyOpinion
No. 15-7286
11-24-2015
ANTHONY FRED MARTIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SUSAN DUFFY, Defendant - Appellee.
Anthony Fred Martin, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. David C. Norton, District Judge. (4:15-cv-02104-DCN) Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Fred Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Anthony Fred Martin seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) civil rights action. 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 the filing of an amended complaint, we conclude that the order Martin seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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