BLANKUMSEE v. BEACHLEY (2019)

Azaniah Blankumsee seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. 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 district court's dismissal of the claims against Defendants Michaels, Hogan, and Cocoran was without prejudice and “did not clearly preclude amendment,” Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc'y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 630 (4th Cir. 2015), Blankumsee may be able to remedy the deficiencies identified by the district court by filing an amended complaint, id. at 623-24. Accordingly, the district court's dismissal order is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See id.; Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand with instructions for the district court to allow Blankumsee to amend his complaint. See Goode, 807 F.3d at 630.

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

PER CURIAM:

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.