Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02474/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02474-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Constance Hauck Adamson
Appellant
Communist Party of World Government
Appellee
Socialist Party of World Government
Appellee
World Government Communist Party
Appellee
World Government on My Insured Property
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2474

CONSTANCE HAUCK ADAMSON, a/k/a Constance Hauck Adamson, 

a/k/a Constance S. Hauck,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WORLD GOVERNMENT COMMUNIST PARTY; COMMUNIST PARTY OF WORLD 

GOVERNMENT; SOCIALIST PARTY OF WORLD GOVERNMENT; WORLD 

GOVERNMENT ON MY INSURED PROPERTY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (6:15-cv-03497-HMH)

Submitted: February 23, 2016 Decided: February 25, 2016

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Constance Hauck Adamson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2474 Doc: 6 Filed: 02/25/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Constance Hauck Adamson seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation and dismissing her complaint without prejudice. 

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 Adamson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor 

an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 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 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

Appeal: 15-2474 Doc: 6 Filed: 02/25/2016 Pg: 2 of 2