HEYNS v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC JP 50 (2019)

Sally Heyns seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing her amended civil complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2012).^* The court's order allowed Heyns leave to amend the complaint and explained that it would be her last opportunity to do so.

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). Because the district court's order explicitly allowed Heyns to amend her complaint to potentially cure the defects identified, the order she seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Goode, 807 F.3d at 623-25, 628-30. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court to allow Heyns to file a second 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

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   The district court previously dismissed Heyns’ original complaint without prejudice, pursuant to § 1915(e), and we dismissed Heyns’ appeal of that order for lack of jurisdiction. Heyns v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 764 F. App'x 341, 342 (4th Cir. 2019) (citing Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc'y, 807 F.3d 619, 623-25, 628-30 (4th Cir. 2015)).

PER CURIAM:

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.