Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-01931/USCOURTS-ca4-19-01931-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1931

BRIAN GREEN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; BROCK & SCOTT, PLLC,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Charlotte. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (3:19-cv-00075-KDB)

Submitted: January 21, 2020 Decided: January 23, 2020

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian Green, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Marc Presel, BROCK & SCOTT, PLLC, Charlotte, 

North Carolina, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-1931 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/23/2020 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Brian Green appeals the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice his claims

against Appellee Brock & Scott, PLLC for insufficient service of process and his claim 

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692(g) (2018) against all of the Appellees. On appeal, we confine 

our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). 

Because Green’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s 

disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order as to this claim. See

Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important 

document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that 

brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment in part. 

Green also seeks to appeal the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his 

claims under 15 U.S.C. 1692c(b) (2018) and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(a)-(b) (2018) for 

failure to state a claim. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 

28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2018), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 

(2018); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-

46 (1949). “An order dismissing a complaint without prejudice is not an appealable final 

order under § 1291 if ‘the plaintiff could save his action by merely amending his 

complaint.’” Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015) 

(quoting Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 

(4th Cir. 1993)). Because the grounds for the district court’s dismissal “did not clearly 

preclude amendment,” Goode, 807 F.3d at 630, we conclude that the court’s order is neither 

a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order as to these claims. 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-1931 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/23/2020 Pg: 2 of 3
3

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal in part for lack of jurisdiction. In Goode, we 

remanded to the district court with instructions to allow amendment of the complaint. Id. 

Here, however, the district court already has provided Green with an opportunity to amend. 

Accordingly, we direct on remand that the district court, in its discretion, either afford 

Green another opportunity to amend or dismiss these claims with prejudice, thereby 

rendering the dismissal order a final, appealable judgment. 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.

AFFIRMED IN PART,

DISMISSED IN PART, AND REMANDED

USCA4 Appeal: 19-1931 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/23/2020 Pg: 3 of 3