Case ID: f-appx_539/html/0124-01.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

Dawn NORMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rhoda PATNETLLI; Boneca Norman; Annie Williams; Isabelle Hillard; Claudine Reeves; Nettia Conselle; Jane Doe; John Doe, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-1285.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 29, 2013.
    Decided: Sept. 3, 2013.
    Dawn Norman, Appellant pro se.
    Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Dawn Norman seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her civil complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order directing her 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., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Norman seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Because Norman can remedy the deficiencies identified by the district court by filing an amended complaint following the instructions of the district court, 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.