Case Name: Douglas E. OSBORNE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BAKERS CONFECTIONARY, TOBACCO WORKERS AND GRAIN MILLERS UNION, LOCAL T-317, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-16
Citations: 597 F. App'x 182
Docket Number: No. 14-2067
Parties: Douglas E. OSBORNE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BAKERS CONFECTIONARY, TOBACCO WORKERS AND GRAIN MILLERS UNION, LOCAL T-317, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 597
Pages: 182–182

Head Matter:
Douglas E. OSBORNE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BAKERS CONFECTIONARY, TOBACCO WORKERS AND GRAIN MILLERS UNION, LOCAL T-317, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-2067.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 12, 2015.
Decided: March 16, 2015.
Douglas E. Osborne, Appellant pro se.
Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
The opinion is filed by a quorum pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Douglas E. Osborne seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012), dismissing without prejudice his civil complaint against his former union for failure to state a claim. 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 Osborne seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and we deny as moot Osborne's motion to compel the production of documents. 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.
Because Osborne may amend his complaint to cure the defects identified by the district court, the dismissal Order is interlocutory and not appealable. See Chao v. Rivendell Woods, Inc., 415 F.3d 342, 345 (4th Cir.2005); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.1993).