United States v. Humberto Morales , 687 F. App'x 279 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 16-7769
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    HUMBERTO CHAVEZ MORALES, a/k/a Mario Romero Vera, a/k/a Gallo,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
    Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:14-cr-00054-TDS-3; 1:16-cv-
    01243-TDS-JLW)
    Submitted: April 25, 2017                                         Decided: April 28, 2017
    Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Humberto Chavez Morales, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United
    States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Humberto Chavez Morales seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the
    magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing without prejudice his postjudgment
    motion. 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 deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by filing a
    proper action in the correct district and using the correct forms, we conclude that the
    order Morales seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
    collateral order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 
    10 F.3d 1064
    , 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss Morales’ appeal for lack of
    jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Morales to
    amend. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 
    807 F.3d 619
    , 623-24 (4th Cir.
    2015). 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 & REMANDED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-7769

Citation Numbers: 687 F. App'x 279

Judges: Motz, Duncan, Agee

Filed Date: 4/28/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024