Case Name: David A. CAMPBELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STONEMOR PARTNERS, LP, Defendant-Appellee, and Paula Harris, RVP; Anita Deeb, Area Manager; Lauren Bailey, HR Compliance Manager; Gina Mack, Director Benefits & Administration, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-21
Citations: 706 F. App'x 806
Docket Number: No. 17-1925
Parties: David A. CAMPBELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STONEMOR PARTNERS, LP, Defendant-Appellee, and Paula Harris, RVP; Anita Deeb, Area Manager; Lauren Bailey, HR Compliance Manager; Gina Mack, Director Benefits & Administration, Defendants.
Judges: Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 706
Pages: 806–806

Head Matter:
David A. CAMPBELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STONEMOR PARTNERS, LP, Defendant-Appellee, and Paula Harris, RVP; Anita Deeb, Area Manager; Lauren Bailey, HR Compliance Manager; Gina Mack, Director Benefits & Administration, Defendants.
No. 17-1925
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: December 19, 2017
Decided: December 21, 2017
David A. Campbell, Appellant Pro Se,
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Campbell seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his complaint for failure to allege facts sufficient to establish that venue was proper in the Eastern District of Virginia. 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 district court identified a deficiency that Campbell may remedy by filing an amended complaint, we conclude that the order Campbell 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 deny Campbell's motion to proceed in for-ma pauperis, dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Campbell 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