Case Name: Michael Anthony WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W.E. LESTER, Correctional Officer; J.K. Willis, Correctional Officer; Shelton, Sergeant; R.D. Perkins, Lieutenant; T. Lowe, Inmate Hearing Officer (I.H.O.); J.D. Shreve, Lieutenant, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-09-03
Citations: 582 F. App'x 268
Docket Number: No. 14-6678
Parties: Michael Anthony WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W.E. LESTER, Correctional Officer; J.K. Willis, Correctional Officer; Shelton, Sergeant; R.D. Perkins, Lieutenant; T. Lowe, Inmate Hearing Officer (I.H.O.); J.D. Shreve, Lieutenant, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 582
Pages: 268–269

Head Matter:
Michael Anthony WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W.E. LESTER, Correctional Officer; J.K. Willis, Correctional Officer; Shelton, Sergeant; R.D. Perkins, Lieutenant; T. Lowe, Inmate Hearing Officer (I.H.O.); J.D. Shreve, Lieutenant, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-6678.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 28, 2014.
Decided: Sept. 3, 2014.
Michael Anthony Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Michael Anthony Williams seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) 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, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Williams seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appeal-able interlocutory or collateral order, as Williams may be able to save the action by amending his complaint to cure the pleading deficiencies identified by the district court. 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 Williams' motions to appoint counsel and for leave 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.
Any amended complaint must be filed in the district court rather than in this court.