KING v. NEALL (2018)

Robert King seeks to appeal an order of the district court dismissing King’s complaint on various grounds, in part without prejudice to King’s right to file an amended complaint. King has taken advantage of the district court’s invitation, and his amended complaint is now pending in the district court. Appellees have moved to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

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 King 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 (4th Cir. 2015) (“An order dismissing a complaint without prejudice is not an appealable final order under § 1291 if the plaintiff could save his action by merely amending his complaint.” (internal quotation marks omitted) ).

Accordingly, we grant Appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny as moot King’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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

PER CURIAM:

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.