Edward Bryan v. SCDC ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 12-8092
    EDWARD BRYAN,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    SCDC,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
    (3:12-cv-01874-RBH)
    Submitted:   March 26, 2013                 Decided:   March 28, 2013
    Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Edward Sabari Bryan, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Edward       Sabari    Bryan        seeks    to     appeal      the    district
    court’s    order      accepting        the    recommendation            of   the     magistrate
    judge    and    dismissing        his    
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
          (2006)      complaint
    without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2006).                               This court
    may   exercise        jurisdiction       only      over     final      orders,       
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders,
    
    28 U.S.C. § 1292
         (2006);   Fed.        R.    Civ.    P.     54(b);      Cohen   v.
    Beneficial      Indus.         Loan   Corp.,       
    337 U.S. 541
    ,      545-47       (1949).
    Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be
    remedied by the filing of a complaint that cures the defects
    noted   by     the    district        court,    we       conclude      that    the    district
    court’s      order        is   neither   a     final       order       nor    an   appealable
    interlocutory or collateral order.                        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.                                  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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-8092

Judges: Duncan, Floyd, Per Curiam, Thacker

Filed Date: 3/28/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024