Case ID: f-appx_448/html/0330-01.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

Jefferey FOWLKES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Vernon M. POE, Special Agent, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 11-6547.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 29, 2011.
    Decided: Oct. 5, 2011.
    Jefferey Fowlkes, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey Fowlkes seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint based upon his failure to comply with the court’s prior order to particularize his complaint. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); 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). Because Fowlkes may proceed with this action by amending his complaint to provide the information requested by the district court, the order he seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an ap-pealable interlocutory or collateral order. 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.