Woods v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.

Full title: CYNTHIA B. WOODS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF…

Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Sep 30, 2019

No. 19-1606 (4th Cir. Sep. 30, 2019)

Opinion

No. 19-1606

09-30-2019

CYNTHIA B. WOODS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES; MONA SECHREST; MARSHA BROWN; KIM BACKMAN; DR. PETE LIGGETT, Defendants - Appellees, and HOLLIE HOADWONIC; CHRISTIAN L. SOURA, Defendants.

Cynthia B. Woods, Appellant Pro Se. Vance J. Bettis, GIGNILLIAT, SAVITZ & BETTIS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM

UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (3:18-cv-00834-MGL) Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cynthia B. Woods, Appellant Pro Se. Vance J. Bettis, GIGNILLIAT, SAVITZ & BETTIS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Cynthia B. Woods seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissing, without prejudice, Woods' amended civil complaint against Defendants. After the district court dismissed Woods' amended complaint, Woods filed a second amended complaint and Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which is still pending in the district court. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory and remand for further proceedings.

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 Woods has attempted to cure the deficiencies in her amended complaint as identified by the district court, and since Defendants' motion to dismiss is still pending in the district court, we find that the district court's dismissal order 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). We therefore dismiss this appeal and remand to the district court for further proceedings. Cf. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc'y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 630 (4th Cir. 2015). 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