Martin Rugamba v. Rockledge Bus (Tour), Inc. ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1076
MARTIN RUGAMBA,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
ROCKLEDGE BUS (TOUR), INC.; ROCKLEDGE BUS (TOUR) INC.
SUPERVISOR; MTA POLICE OFFICER 1; MTA POLICE OFFICER 2; MTA
BUS DRIVER; MTA TRAIN OPERATOR; AMTRAK 3 UNKNOWN AGENTS;
7-ELEVEN, INC.; 7-ELEVEN, INC. 2 UNKNOWN EMPLOYEES; DOES
1-20,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge.
(1:15-cv-03948-GLR)
Submitted: June 23, 2016 Decided: June 28, 2016
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Martin Rugamba, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Martin Rugamba seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. 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 the filing of an amended complaint, we conclude that
the order Rugamba seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor
an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Goode v. Cent.
Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015);
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