RANDOLPH v. HOBBY LOBBY INC (2020)

Chloe E. Randolph seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing her civil complaint without prejudice. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2018), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2018); 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). “An order dismissing a complaint without prejudice is not an appealable final order under § 1291 if ‘the plaintiff could save [the] action by merely amending [the] complaint.’ ” Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc'y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993)). Because the grounds for the district court's dismissal “did not clearly preclude amendment,” id. at 630, we conclude that the court's order is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand to the district court with instructions to allow Randolph to amend the complaint. Id. 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Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.