Case Name: Andrea Lea CHARTERS, a/k/a Andrea L. Charters, a/k/a Andrea Lea Aronovitz, a/k/a Andrea Charters, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Atessa SHAHMIRZADI; Potomac Law Group, PLLC; Harvard University, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-02
Citations: 694 F. App'x 188
Docket Number: No. 17-1340
Parties: Andrea Lea CHARTERS, a/k/a Andrea L. Charters, a/k/a Andrea Lea Aronovitz, a/k/a Andrea Charters, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Atessa SHAHMIRZADI; Potomac Law Group, PLLC; Harvard University, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 694
Pages: 188–188

Head Matter:
Andrea Lea CHARTERS, a/k/a Andrea L. Charters, a/k/a Andrea Lea Aronovitz, a/k/a Andrea Charters, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Atessa SHAHMIRZADI; Potomac Law Group, PLLC; Harvard University, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-1340
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 28, 2017
Decided: August 2, 2017
Andrea Lea Charters, Appellant Pro Se. Ronda Brown Esaw, GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP, McLean, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Andrea Lea Charters seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing without prejudice her federal civil 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 filing an amended complaint, see Galustian v. Peter, 591 F.3d 724, 730 (4th Cir. 2010) (applying Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) rather than Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 where plaintiff sought to add party by amending complaint); Mayes v. Rapoport, 198 F.3d 457, 462 n.11 (4th Cir. 1999) (same), we conclude that the order Charters seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See 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 this appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Charters to amend her complaint. Goode, 807 F.3d at 630. 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 AND REMANDED