WOODS v. Hollie Hoadwonic; Christian L. Soura, Defendants. (2019)

Cynthia B. Woods seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissing, without prejudice, Woods’ amended civil complaint against Defendants. After the district court dismissed Woods’ amended complaint, Woods filed a second amended complaint and Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which is still pending in the district court. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory and remand for further proceedings.

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 Woods has attempted to cure the deficiencies in her amended complaint as identified by the district court, and since Defendants’ motion to dismiss is still pending in the district court, we find that the district court's dismissal order is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). We therefore dismiss this appeal and remand to the district court for further proceedings. Cf. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc'y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 630 (4th Cir. 2015). 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Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.