Case ID: f-appx_688/html/0202-01.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

Fabio K. PERIERA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CREATIVE ARTISTS AGENCY; International Creative Management; United Talent Agency; Richard Lovett, President, CAA; Ashley Hasz; Chris Lawson, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-2183
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 20, 2017
    Decided: May 4, 2017
    Fabio K. Periera, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Fabio Krishna Periera seeks to appeal the district court’s sua sponte order dismissing his civil action without prejudice for his failure to allege facts in the complaint to make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction over the defendants. 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, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed, 1528 (1949). We conclude that the order Periera seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Goode v. Central Va. Legal Aid, 807 F.3d 619 (4th Cir. 2015).

Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny the pending motions, dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Periera an opportunity to amend or supplement his 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 
      
       We note that a defendant may waive the defense of a lack of jurisdiction over the person, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(1); Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 584, 119 S.Ct. 1563, 143 L.Ed.2d 760 (1999), and we express no view on the propriety of the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of the action on this basis.