Olandio Ray Workman v. Metro PCS Mobile Phone Company , 707 F. App'x 172 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6952
OLANDIO RAY WORKMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
METRO PCS MOBILE PHONE COMPANY; MR. RICHARDSON; METRO PCS;
METRO PCS MOBILE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Greenville. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (6:17-cv-01208-RBH)
Submitted: December 21, 2017 Decided: December 27, 2017
Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Olandio Ray Workman, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Olandio Ray Workman seeks to appeal from the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2012) complaint against Metro PCS Mobile Phone Company and Mr. Richardson,
the registered agent for Metro PCS. 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 (1949). The district
court dismissed the complaint against the Defendants on the ground that they were not
acting under color of state law. Because Workman may be able to remedy the deficiencies
by filing an amended complaint, we conclude that the order Workman seeks to appeal is
neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Goode v. Cent.
Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 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 this appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court with
instructions to allow Workman to amend his complaint. Goode, 807 F.3d at 630. 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