Jerome Want v. Kevin Cerrone , 688 F. App'x 184 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-2105
JEROME WANT, Lead Plaintiff, Elderly & Handicapped Riders of Washington
County Transit,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KEVIN CERRONE, Director, Washington Co. Transit; JAMES STERLING,
Director of Public Works; TERRY L. BAKER, Chairman of the County Board of
Supervisors; PETE K. RAHN, Secretary, Maryland State Department of
Transportation,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J.
Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-01854-JFM)
Submitted: April 25, 2017 Decided: May 3, 2017
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerome Want, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jerome Want seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing some of the claims
in his civil complaint with prejudice and the remainder without prejudice. 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). Because the district
court identified deficiencies that Want may remedy by filing an amended complaint, we
conclude that the order Want 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 deny Want’s motion to appoint
counsel, deny as moot his motion to expedite, and dismiss this appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. We “remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow [Want] 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