Case Name: James Dallas GOODSON, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARK; Louis B. Cei; D.A. Braxton; Mr. Younce, D.O.C., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-04-29
Citations: 519 F. App'x 207
Docket Number: No. 12-8154
Parties: James Dallas GOODSON, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARK; Louis B. Cei; D.A. Braxton; Mr. Younce, D.O.C., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 519
Pages: 207–208

Head Matter:
James Dallas GOODSON, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARK; Louis B. Cei; D.A. Braxton; Mr. Younce, D.O.C., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-8154.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 25, 2013.
Decided: April 29, 2013.
James Dallas Goodson, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Dallas Goodson, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint 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, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Goodson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appeal-able 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. See 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.