Case Name: Steven HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ELKINS CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; Randolph County Sheriff's Office; West Virginia State Police, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-09-21
Citations: 248 F. App'x 479
Docket Number: No. 07-7032
Parties: Steven HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ELKINS CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; Randolph County Sheriff’s Office; West Virginia State Police, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 248
Pages: 479–480

Head Matter:
Steven HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ELKINS CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; Randolph County Sheriff’s Office; West Virginia State Police, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-7032.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 12, 2007.
Decided: Sept. 21, 2007.
Steven Howard, Appellant Pro Se. John Everett Busch, Busch, Zurbuch & Thompson, PLLC, Elkins, West Virginia; Virginia Grottendieck Lanham, South Charleston, West Virginia; John A. Hoyer, State Police Legal Counsel, South Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Steven Howard seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and dismissing his civil rights complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); 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). Because the deficiency identified by the district court — that the complaint did not assert facts in support of its legal conclusions — may be remedied by the filing of a complaint that articulates adequate facts, we conclude that the order Howard seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.1993) (a dismissal without prejudice is not generally appealable). 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.