Case Name: Richard R. CADMUS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FREDERICK COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; Robert T. Williamson, Sheriff; Leonard Milholland, Former Winchester City Sheriff; Elizabeth Kellas Burton, Judge; John Does 1-25, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-03
Citations: 683 F. App'x 254
Docket Number: No. 16-2173
Parties: Richard R. CADMUS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FREDERICK COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; Robert T. Williamson, Sheriff; Leonard Milholland, Former Winchester City Sheriff; Elizabeth Kellas Burton, Judge; John Does 1-25, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 683
Pages: 254–255

Head Matter:
Richard R. CADMUS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FREDERICK COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; Robert T. Williamson, Sheriff; Leonard Milholland, Former Winchester City Sheriff; Elizabeth Kellas Burton, Judge; John Does 1-25, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-2173
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 30, 2017
Decided: April 3, 2017
Richard R. Cadmus, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Rosalie Fessier, TIMBERLAKE, SMITH, THOMAS & MOSES, PC, Staun-ton, Virginia; Erin Rose McNeill, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Richard R. Cadmus, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's report dismissing some of Cadmus' claims with prejudice and others without prejudice. 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., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). We conclude that the order Cad-mus seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc'y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623-24, 629-30 (4th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and remand to the district court with instructions to allow Cadmus to file an amended complaint. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma terials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED AND REMANDED