Case Name: Sally Dee DIRICO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Christiansburg Residency; David Clarke, VDOT Chris-tiansburg Residency; Stacy Keith; Donna Graham, VDOT Salem District, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-01-27
Citations: 552 F. App'x 274
Docket Number: No. 13-2341
Parties: Sally Dee DIRICO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Christiansburg Residency; David Clarke, VDOT Chris-tiansburg Residency; Stacy Keith; Donna Graham, VDOT Salem District, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 552
Pages: 274–275

Head Matter:
Sally Dee DIRICO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Christiansburg Residency; David Clarke, VDOT Chris-tiansburg Residency; Stacy Keith; Donna Graham, VDOT Salem District, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-2341.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 23, 2014.
Decided: Jan. 27, 2014.
Sally Dee DiRieo, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Sally Dee DiRico seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing her in for-ma pauperis employment discrimination action without prejudice for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012). 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). The order DiRico seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, as DiRico may be able to save her action by amending her complaint to cure the pleading deficiencies that were identified by the district court. 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.