Dirico v. Virginia Department of Transportation ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2341
SALLY DEE DIRICO,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Christiansburg
Residency; DAVID CLARKE, VDOT Christiansburg Residency;
STACY KEITH; DONNA GRAHAM, VDOT Salem District,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (7:13-cv-00440-SGW)
Submitted: January 23, 2014 Decided: January 27, 2014
Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sally Dee DiRico, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sally Dee DiRico seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing her in forma pauperis employment discrimination
action without prejudice for failure to state a claim, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012). 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). The order
DiRico seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order, as DiRico may be
able to save her action by amending her complaint to cure the
pleading deficiencies that were identified by the district
court. 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