MATOUSEK v. SUNTRUST CEO (2019)

Susan Neal Matousek seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing her civil complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter 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, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because it is possible that Matousek could cure the defects in her complaint through amendment, the order she 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, 623-25, 628-30 (4th Cir. 2015); Blitz v. Napolitano, 700 F.3d 733, 738 (4th Cir. 2012); 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. See Goode, 807 F.3d at 630. We deny Matousek's motion for initial hearing en banc, deny her motions to appoint counsel, deny her motion to suspend cases, and 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Dismissed and remanded with instructions by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.