Case ID: f-appx_389/html/0325-02.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

Michael J. SINDRAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF TAKOMA PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT; K. Gilbert; Mr. Wolff, # 8352; Terry Johnsson, Defendants-Appellees.
    No 10-1394.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 22, 2010.
    Decided: July 30, 2010.
    Michael J. Sindram, Appellant Pro Se.
    
      Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael J. Sindram seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his request for a preliminary injunction and dismissing his complaint without prejudice. 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 Sindram seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order because it is possible for Sindram to cure the deficiencies in the complaint as noted by the district court. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.