Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-02017/USCOURTS-ca4-16-02017-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 152
Nature of Suit: Recovery of Defaulted Student Loans
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2017

MARGARET REAVES,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC; LITTON LOAN SERVICING; POPULAR 

FINANCIAL; THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:16-cv-00186-FL)

Submitted: February 16, 2017 Decided: February 21, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and 

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Margaret Reaves, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Michael Rowlson, 

BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-2017 Doc: 17 Filed: 02/21/2017 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Margaret Reaves seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

dismissing her civil complaint. 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 (1949). Because the 

deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by 

the filing of an amended complaint, we conclude that the order 

Reaves 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 (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 

and remand the case to the district court with instructions to 

allow Reaves to file an amended complaint. 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 AND REMANDED

Appeal: 16-2017 Doc: 17 Filed: 02/21/2017 Pg: 2 of 2