Case ID: f-appx_579/html/0185-02.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

Carl E. McADOO, as Executor of the Estate of Charles Raford McAdoo, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Sonny W. Tucker, Jr., Dr.; Sandy F. Pierce, PA; Rutherford County Department of Social Services; John Carroll; Vic Martin; Ann Padgett; Joyce Ann Nash, all individuals sued in official and personal capacity, all defendants sued jointly and severally, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-1264.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 24, 2014.
    Decided: July 28, 2014.
    Carl E. McAdoo, Appellant Pro Se. Allison C. Carroll, Paul Bradford Taylor, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Sean Francis Perrin, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina; John E. Rogers, II, Ward Law Firm, PA, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appel-lees.
    Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Carl E. McAdoo seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his action seeking to prosecute the claims of a decedent’s estate. The district court dismissed for failure to obtain counsel as directed by the magistrate judge. 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). The order McAdoo seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, as McA-doo may be able to save his action by obtaining counsel. 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.