MATOUSEK v. APPLE (2018)

Susan Neal Matousek seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing her complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2012) without prejudice as frivolous and 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, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because it is possible that Matousek could cure defects in her complaint through amendment, the order she seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc'y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623-25, 628-30 (4th Cir. 2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Matousek to file an amended complaint. 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 AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

PER CURIAM:

Dismissed and remanded with instructions by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.