Phillip Pridgen, Sr. v. Jurgen Leijekken ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 18-2036
    PHILLIP MICHAEL PRIDGEN, SR.,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    JURGEN LEIJEKKEN, CEO Hireright; JANET MILLER, Manager, Hireright;
    WILL WAINRIGHT, Escalation Specialist,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
    Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:18-cv-01323-CCB)
    Submitted: November 29, 2018                                 Decided: December 3, 2018
    Before DUNCAN and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Phillip Michael Pridgen, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Meredith Lynn Schramm-Strosser,
    LITTLER MENDELSON PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Phillip Michael Pridgen, Sr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing without
    prejudice his civil action for lack of personal jurisdiction. 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 it is possible that Pridgen
    could cure the defects in his complaint through amendment, the district court’s order he
    seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
    See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, 
    807 F.3d 619
    , 623-25, 628-30 (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 Pridgen to file an amended complaint. We
    deny Pridgen’s motion for appointment of counsel and 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-2036

Filed Date: 12/3/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/3/2018