Opinion
No. 19-2169
03-16-2020
CHLOE EVA RANDOLPH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HOBBY LOBBY, INC., Defendant - Appellee.
Chloe Eva Randolph, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:19-cv-00460-HEH) Before KING, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chloe Eva Randolph, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Chloe E. Randolph seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing her civil complaint without prejudice. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2018), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2018); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). "An order dismissing a complaint without prejudice is not an appealable final order under § 1291 if 'the plaintiff could save [the] action by merely amending [the] complaint.'" Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc'y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993)). Because the grounds for the district court's dismissal "did not clearly preclude amendment," id. at 630, we conclude that the court's order is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand to the district court with instructions to allow Randolph to amend the complaint. Id. 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