Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Humberto Chavez MORALES, a/k/a Mario Romero Vera, a/k/a Gallo, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-28
Citations: 687 F. App'x 279
Docket Number: No. 16-7769
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Humberto Chavez MORALES, a/k/a Mario Romero Vera, a/k/a Gallo, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 687
Pages: 279–280

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Humberto Chavez MORALES, a/k/a Mario Romero Vera, a/k/a Gallo, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-7769
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 25, 2017
Decided: April 28, 2017
Humberto Chavez Morales, Appellant Pro Se.
Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Humberto Chavez Morales seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissing without prejudice his post-judgment motion. 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). Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by filing a proper action in the correct district and using the correct forms, we conclude that the order Morales seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss Morales' appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Morales to amend. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc'y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015). 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 & REMANDED