PRASAD v. MASSEY TAYLOR (2018)

In these consolidated cases, Sundari K. Prasad seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing without prejudice two of Prasad's pending 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) actions for failure to adequately comply with the magistrate judge's orders to submit second particularized complaints. 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 deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by supplementing the complaints as directed, we conclude that the orders Prasad seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. 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 dismiss these appeals 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

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   We do not remand either of these matters to the district court, though, because the court previously and repeatedly afforded Prasad the chance to further particularize and amend her complaints, and she failed to do so. Cf. Goode, 807 F.3d at 629-30.

PER CURIAM:

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.