Case Name: Kenneth H. NEWKIRK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Norma Jean CAPP, Ms., Magistrate, Issue Search Warrants; Robert Little, Mr., Detective, Solve Mysteries; R. Mayer, Mr., Detective-Detective, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-07-28
Citations: 579 F. App'x 154
Docket Number: No. 14-6387
Parties: Kenneth H. NEWKIRK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Norma Jean CAPP, Ms., Magistrate, Issue Search Warrants; Robert Little, Mr., Detective, Solve Mysteries; R. Mayer, Mr., Detective-Detective, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 579
Pages: 154–154

Head Matter:
Kenneth H. NEWKIRK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Norma Jean CAPP, Ms., Magistrate, Issue Search Warrants; Robert Little, Mr., Detective, Solve Mysteries; R. Mayer, Mr., Detective-Detective, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-6387.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 24, 2014.
Decided: July 28, 2014.
Kenneth H. Newkirk, Appellant Pro Se.
Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth H. Newkirk appeals the district court's order directing him to particularize his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint and denying his motion for appointment of counsel.
We may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). When a notice of appeal is premature, the jurisdictional defect can be cured if the district court enters a final judgment prior to our consideration of the appeal under the doctrine of cumulative finality. Equip. Fin. Grp., Inc. v. Traverse Computer Brokers, 973 F.2d 345, 347-48 (4th Cir.1992). However, not all premature notices of appeal are subject to the cumulative finality rule; instead, this doctrine applies only when the appellant appeals from an order that the district court could have certified for immediate appeal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 287-89 (4th Cir.2005). Appeals from "clearly interlocutory decision[s]," such as the one Newkirk seeks to appeal, cannot be saved under cumulative finality. Id. at 288 (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, although the district court has entered its final order dismissing Newkirk's action, we dismiss Newkirk's appeal as interlocutory.
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.