MCBRIDE v. 51239 5922 5993 (2020)

Kevin Thomas McBride seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; 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). “[D]ismissals without prejudice generally are not appealable ‘unless the grounds for dismissal clearly indicate that no amendment in the complaint could cure the defects in the plaintiff's case.’ ” Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC, 959 F.3d 605, 610 (4th Cir. 2020) (quoting Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1993)). Because the district court dismissed McBride's complaint without prejudice to McBride filing an amended complaint, the court's order is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand to the district court with instructions to allow McBride to amend the 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 same day McBride filed a notice of appeal, he filed a § 1983 complaint that differed in several respects from his original complaint. See McBride v. A.C.D.F., No. 1:19-cv-01156-AJT-MSN (E.D. Va. Filed Feb. 18, 2020) (4th Cir. Electronic Record at 80-85).

PER CURIAM:

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.