Case Name: Althea Marie HUGHES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-02
Citations: 675 F. App'x 321
Docket Number: No. 16-2026
Parties: Althea Marie HUGHES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 675
Pages: 321–322

Head Matter:
Althea Marie HUGHES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-2026
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: January 31, 2017
Decided: February 2, 2017
Althea Marie Hughes, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald James Guillot, Jr., SAMUEL I. WHITE, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Althea Marie .Hughes seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing her civil complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). 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., 387 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because Hughes may be able to remedy the deficiencies identified by the district court by filing an amended complaint stating sufficient facts to support her claims, the order Hughes seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Goode v. Central Va. Legal Aid Soc'y, 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 the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Hughes to file an amended complaint. We deny Hughes' motion for transcripts at government expense. 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