Case ID: f-appx_714/html/0262-01.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

Barbara L. COMBS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee FOR JP ALT 2006-SI; Surety Trustees, LLC, as substitute Trustee, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 17-1891
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: February 28, 2018
    Decided: March 9, 2018
    Henry W. McLaughlin, III, LAW OFFICE. OF HENRY MCLAUGHLIN, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Andrew B. Pittman, Allison Melton, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Abby K. Moynihan, MCCABE, WEIS-BERG & CONWAY, LLC, Laurel, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Barbara L. Combs seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing, without prejudice, Count One of her civil complaint, and dismissing the remainder of the complaint with prejudice. 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 district court stated that the identified deficiencies in Count One of Combs’ complaint may be remedied through the filing of an amended complaint with additional factual details supporting the claim. Therefore, we conclude that the order Combs seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).

Accordingly, we grant Appellees’ motion to dismiss, dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Combs to file an amended complaint as to Count One. 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 
      
       Any challenge to the district court's dismissal of Counts Two and Three may be made following a final order on Combs’ amended complaint, if she files one. We leave to the district court whether to consolidate Combs’ later-filed complaint, No. 1:17-00872-LO-IDD, with any amended complaint in this case, or whether to follow some other course of action as to No. 1:17-00872-LO-IDD.