Case Name: Ronnie HEADEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF GREEN ROCK CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-04-23
Citations: 519 F. App'x 158
Docket Number: No. 13-6170
Parties: Ronnie HEADEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF GREEN ROCK CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 519
Pages: 158–159

Head Matter:
Ronnie HEADEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF GREEN ROCK CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-6170.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 18, 2013.
Decided: April 23, 2013.
Ronnie Clarence Headen, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronnie Clarence Headen seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint for failure to comply with a court order directing him to file the documents necessary to proceed under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(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, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied upon the resubmission of Headen's complaint, we conclude that the district court's order is neither a final order nor an ap-pealable 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.