Nathaniel Rice v. Greensboro Jail Central ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6511 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/07/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6511
NATHANIEL DANTE RICE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GREENSBORO JAIL CENTRAL,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:22-cv-00044-CCE-JLW)
Submitted: February 27, 2023 Decided: March 7, 2023
Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nathaniel Dante Rice, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6511 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/07/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Nathaniel Dante Rice seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge, dismissing without prejudice Rice’s 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 complaint for failure to provide the necessary forms, and providing Rice the
opportunity to file an amended complaint. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory.
This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen
v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Rice seeks to
appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Britt
v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790, 793, 797 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (order) (explaining that a district
court’s “order that dismisses a complaint with leave to amend is not a final decision” and
that plaintiff must either file an amended complaint in the district court or “request that the
district court enter a final decision dismissing [his] case without leave to amend”).
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