Case Name: David Charles BACH, a/k/a David Bach, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CIA, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-07-11
Citations: 667 F. App'x 383
Docket Number: No. 16-1191
Parties: David Charles BACH, a/k/a David Bach, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CIA, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 383–384

Head Matter:
David Charles BACH, a/k/a David Bach, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CIA, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-1191
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 5, 2016
Decided: July 11, 2016
David Charles Bach, Appellant Pro Se.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Charles Bach seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's report recommending that his civil action be dismissed 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 magistrate judge's report and recommendation Bach seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Furthermore, the district court's adoption of the report and recommendation after Bach noted his appeal does not overcome the jurisdictional defect in Bach's appeal because the magistrate judge's report was not an order that the district court could have certified for immediate appeal. See Equip. Fin. Group v. Traverse Comput. Brokers, 973 F.2d 345, 347-48 (4th Cir. 1992) (holding that doctrine of cumulative finality only applies where order appealed from could have been certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)). 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