Case Name: Olandio Ray WORKMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. METRO PCS MOBILE PHONE COMPANY; Mr. Richardson; Metro PCS; Metro PCS Mobile, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-27
Citations: 707 F. App'x 172
Docket Number: No. 17-6952
Parties: Olandio Ray WORKMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. METRO PCS MOBILE PHONE COMPANY; Mr. Richardson; Metro PCS; Metro PCS Mobile, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 707
Pages: 172–172

Head Matter:
Olandio Ray WORKMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. METRO PCS MOBILE PHONE COMPANY; Mr. Richardson; Metro PCS; Metro PCS Mobile, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-6952
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: December 21, 2017
Decided: December 27, 2017
Olandio Ray Workman, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Olandio Ray Workman seeks to appeal from the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint against Metro PCS Mobile Phone Company and Mr. Richardson, the registered agent for Metro PCS. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory and remand for further proceedings.
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, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The district court dismissed the complaint against the Defendants on the ground that they were not acting under color of state law. Because Workman may be able to remedy the deficiencies by filing an amended complaint, we conclude that the order Workman 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 (4th Cir. 2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Workman to amend his complaint. Goode, 807 F.3d at 630. 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