Court Opinion

ID: 9961894
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-20 21:00:39.504697+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:18.198434
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7122      Doc: 5        Filed: 04/19/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-7122

        LYDON MCCANN-MCCALPINE,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        PRIMECARE MEDICAL, INC.; PRIMECARE NURSE JANE DOE 1;
        PRIMECARE NURSE JANE DOE 2; PRIMECARE NURSE JANE DOE 3;
        PRIMECARE NURSE JANE DOE 4; PRIMECARE NURSE JANE DOE 5,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:23-cv-02040-GLR)

        Submitted: April 18, 2024                                           Decided: April 19, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Lydon McCann-McCalpine, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7122      Doc: 5         Filed: 04/19/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Lydon McCann-McCalpine seeks to appeal the district court’s order returning his

        complaint, received October 23, 2023, as duplicative of the amended complaint he filed in

        a case that was closed on October 17, 2023. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over

        final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.

        § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-

        46 (1949). We conclude that the document returning McCann-McCalpine’s complaint,

        although docketed as a “return pleading order,” is in fact an administrative letter notifying

        McCann-McCalpine that the district court was rejecting his attempt to file additional

        pleadings because his case was already closed. As such, the order returning McCann-

        McCalpine’s complaint is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral

        order. Therefore, we dismiss this 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

               *
                 Because the October 17 dismissal of the amended complaint was without
        prejudice, if there are substantive differences in his October 23 complaint or other
        circumstances would justify it, McCann-McCalpine may be able to file his complaint as a
        new action in the district court. On this subject we offer no opinion.

                                                     2