Case Name: Sundari K. PRASAD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Monica K. VICK, Drug Addict; Hamilton L. Hendrix; Gloria Dale Lewis-Sorrell; Sharon Lewis-Pauls, Retired; Jonathan D. Headlee, HRRJ; David Carpenter; Ocean Clark; Chocolate Factory; Omid Amiri; Jane Massey; Carolyn D. Nelson; Gail Nelson; Pouncee Nelson, and the Nelson Family; Jim Sorrell; Pauley Pauls, The Estate of June Lewis; Vivienne B. Cheek; Ashton Hendrix; Tracy Bosley, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-24
Citations: 686 F. App'x 156
Docket Number: No. 16-7725
Parties: Sundari K. PRASAD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Monica K. VICK, Drug Addict; Hamilton L. Hendrix; Gloria Dale Lewis-Sorrell; Sharon Lewis-Pauls, Retired; Jonathan D. Headlee, HRRJ; David Carpenter; Ocean Clark; Chocolate Factory; Omid Amiri; Jane Massey; Carolyn D. Nelson; Gail Nelson; Pouncee Nelson, and the Nelson Family; Jim Sorrell; Pauley Pauls, The Estate of June Lewis; Vivienne B. Cheek; Ashton Hendrix; Tracy Bosley, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 686
Pages: 156–156

Head Matter:
Sundari K. PRASAD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Monica K. VICK, Drug Addict; Hamilton L. Hendrix; Gloria Dale Lewis-Sorrell; Sharon Lewis-Pauls, Retired; Jonathan D. Headlee, HRRJ; David Carpenter; Ocean Clark; Chocolate Factory; Omid Amiri; Jane Massey; Carolyn D. Nelson; Gail Nelson; Pouncee Nelson, and the Nelson Family; Jim Sorrell; Pauley Pauls, The Estate of June Lewis; Vivienne B. Cheek; Ashton Hendrix; Tracy Bosley, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-7725
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 20, 2017
Decided: April 24, 2017
Sundari K. Prasad, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sundari K. Prasad seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing without prejudice her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action for failure to adequately comply with the magistrate judge's order to further particularize Prasad's 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by the filing of an amended complaint, we conclude that the order Prasad 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, 623-24 (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. .We deny Prasad's motion to seal confidential documents, as no such documents have been filed in this court. 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
We do not remand this matter to the district court, though, because the court previously afforded Prasad the chance to amend her complaint. Cf. Goode, 807 F.3d at 629-30.