Case ID: f-appx_570/html/0283-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Samuel N. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jean H. TOAL; Rick Quinn; T. Stephen Lynch; William J. Condon, Jr.; Sandra Matthews; Tracey Colton Green; Mitchell Willoughby; John M.S. Hoefer; World Capital Brokerage Inc.; Allianz Life Insurance Company; Gameplan Financial Marketing LLC; John Carrigg; S. Jahue Moore; Tiffany Richardson; Bryan Cantrell; Lindsey Graham; Addison Graves Wilson, Sr.; Alan Wilson; John E. Courson; William N. Nettles; David A. Thomas; Nimrati Randhawa Haley; State of South Carolina; Henry D. McMaster; Glenn McConnell; Finra; Donita Todd; Rich O’Dell; Cindi Scoppe; Daniel E. Shearouse; Major John Tate; Susan B. Lipscomb, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-1280.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 24, 2014.
    Decided: April 29, 2014.
    Samuel N. Smith, Appellant pro se.
    Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Samuel N. Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his civil complaint for lack of jurisdiction. 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Smith seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order because it is possible for him to cure the pleading deficiencies in the complaint that were identified by the district court. See 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.