Case Name: Winston C. JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A.W. DANIEL, Unit Manager, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-06
Citations: 547 F. App'x 354
Docket Number: No. 13-7148
Parties: Winston C. JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A.W. DANIEL, Unit Manager, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 547
Pages: 354–355

Head Matter:
Winston C. JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A.W. DANIEL, Unit Manager, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-7148.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 22, 2013.
Decided: Dec. 6, 2013.
Winston C. Jones, Appellant Pro Se.
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Winston C. Jones seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with the court's order to file an amended complaint specifically providing the names of each defendant and the actionable conduct attributable to each defendant. 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). The order Jones seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, because it is possible for him to cure the pleading deficiencies in the complaint that were identified by the district court. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.1993) (holding that an order dismissing a complaint without prejudice is a final, appealable order only if "no amendment [to the complaint] could cure the defects in the plaintiffs case" (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Chao v. Rivendell Woods, Inc., 415 F.3d 342, 345 (4th Cir.2005) (explaining that, under Domino Sugar, this court must "examine the appealability of a dismissal without prejudice based on the specific facts of the case in order to guard against piecemeal litigation and repetitive appeals"). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten tions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.