Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-02110/USCOURTS-ca4-19-02110-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher Dolin
Appellant
Jordan Kindred
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-2110

CHRISTOPHER DOLIN,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JORDAN KINDRED,

 Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:19-cv-00597-HEH)

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

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Dolin, Appellant Pro Se. William Fisher Etherington, BEALE, DAVIDSON, 

ETHERINGTON & MORRIS, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-2110 Doc: 16 Filed: 01/23/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Dolin appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint 

without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2018) for failure to state a claim. 

We 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, 545-47 (1949). Because the district 

court’s order suggests that Dolin could potentially cure the defects in the complaint 

identified by the district court, we conclude that the order Dolin seeks to appeal is neither 

a final order nor an appealable interlocutory order. See 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 deny leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis, dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and remand the case to the 

district court with instructions to allow Dolin to amend his complaint. Goode, 807 F.3d at 

630. 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

USCA4 Appeal: 19-2110 Doc: 16 Filed: 01/23/2020 Pg: 2 of 2