Case Name: William Edward ROBERTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. GRAM, Defendant-Appellee, and W.T.R.J. Medical, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-17
Citations: 597 F. App'x 196
Docket Number: No. 14-7834
Parties: William Edward ROBERTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. GRAM, Defendant-Appellee, and W.T.R.J. Medical, Defendant.
Judges: Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 597
Pages: 196–197

Head Matter:
William Edward ROBERTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. GRAM, Defendant-Appellee, and W.T.R.J. Medical, Defendant.
No. 14-7834.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 12, 2015.
Decided: March 17, 2015.
William Edward Roberts, Appellant Pro Se.
Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Edward Roberts seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) civil action. Roberts' complaint was dismissed for failure to comply with the district court's order to amend his complaint and particularize his claims. 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, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Roberts seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order because it is possible for him to cure the pleading deficiencies in the complaint that were identified by the district court. See 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.