Case ID: f-appx_521/html/0204-02.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

Adrian ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNKNOWN, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 12-7585.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 23, 2013.
    Decided: May 28, 2013.
    
      Adrian Robinson, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Adrian Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order directing him to file a particularized amended 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., 387 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Robinson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Because Robinson can remedy the deficiencies identified by the district court by filing an amended complaint on a § 1983 complaint form, we conclude that the district court’s order is neither final nor otherwise appealable. 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.