Joseph Verrett, Sr. v. General Motors Automotive , 683 F. App'x 225 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7214
JOSEPH W. VERRETT, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GENERAL MOTORS AUTOMOTIVE GROUP,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:15-cv-00416-HEH-RCY)
Submitted: March 30, 2017 Decided: April 3, 2017
Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph W. Verrett, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joseph W. Verrett, Sr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his civil complaint without prejudice
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). 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 (1949). Because Verrett
may be able to remedy the deficiencies identified by the
district court by filing an amended complaint stating sufficient
facts to support his claims, the order Verrett seeks to appeal
is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
collateral order. Goode v. Central Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, 807
F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015); 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 Verrett to file an 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
2