Case Name: Edward BRYAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SCDC, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-03-28
Citations: 515 F. App'x 219
Docket Number: No. 12-8092
Parties: Edward BRYAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SCDC, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 515
Pages: 219–220

Head Matter:
Edward BRYAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SCDC, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 12-8092.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 26, 2013.
Decided: March 28, 2013.
Edward Sabari Bryan, Appellant Pro Se.
Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Edward Sabari Bryan seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2006). This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); 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 a complaint that cures the defects noted by the district court, we conclude that the district court's order is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 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.