Court Opinion

ID: 9377857
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-08 21:00:14.759854+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:17.394553
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6511      Doc: 9        Filed: 03/07/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6511

        NATHANIEL DANTE RICE,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        GREENSBORO JAIL CENTRAL,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:22-cv-00044-CCE-JLW)

        Submitted: February 27, 2023                                        Decided: March 7, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Nathaniel Dante Rice, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6511       Doc: 9         Filed: 03/07/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Nathaniel Dante Rice seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

        recommendation of the magistrate judge, dismissing without prejudice Rice’s 42 U.S.C.

        § 1983 complaint for failure to provide the necessary forms, and providing Rice the

        opportunity to file an amended complaint. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory.

               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). The order Rice seeks to

        appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Britt

        v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790, 793, 797 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (order) (explaining that a district

        court’s “order that dismisses a complaint with leave to amend is not a final decision” and

        that plaintiff must either file an amended complaint in the district court or “request that the

        district court enter a final decision dismissing [his] case without leave to amend”).

        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

                                                      2