Case ID: f-appx_686/html/0153-02.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

Tracey Terrell GRADY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Susan R. WHITE; Burkamp, Case Manager; Causby, Sergeant, Lead Investigator; Barker, Unit Manager; Quinn, Sergeant; Odom, Officer; Bryan, Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-7722
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 20, 2017
    Decided: April 24, 2017
    
      Tracey Terrell Grady, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tracey Terrell Grady seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint, as amended, for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (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, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because the pleading deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by the filing of an amended complaint, we conclude that the order Grady seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015); 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 deny Grady’s motion to reverse the district court’s ruling. 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 
      
       We do not remand this matter to the district court, though, because the court previously afforded Grady the chance to amend his complaint. Cf. Goode, 807 F.3d at 629-30.