Case ID: f-appx_585/html/0249-01.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

Raymond V. BETHEL, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY, Defendant-Appellee. Raymond V. Bethel, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Department of State Police Sex Offender Registry, Defendant-Appellee.
    Nos. 14-7375, 14-7377.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 18, 2014.
    Decided: Nov. 21, 2014.
    Raymond V. Bethel, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Raymond V. Bethel, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing without prejudice his related actions filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2012). 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 orders Bethel seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders, as Bethel may be able to amend his respective complaints to cure the pleading deficiency identified by the district court. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.1993). Accordingly, we deny Bethel’s motions to amend and dismiss the appeals 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. 
      
       Insofar as Bethel's motions to amend, filed in this court, seek to amend his § 1983 complaints, we note that such amendment must be sought in the district court. We express no opinion as to the effectiveness or propriety of his proposed amendments.