Douglas Osborne v. Lorillard Tobacco Company

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2070
DOUGLAS E. OSBORNE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:14-cv-00750-CCE-LPA)
Submitted: March 12, 2015 Decided: March 16, 2015
Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. *
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Douglas E. Osborne, Appellant Pro Se. Nicole A. Crawford, Max
Daniel McGinn, BROOKS, PIERCE, MCCLENDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD,
LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*
The opinion is filed by a quorum pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 46(d).
PER CURIAM:
Douglas E. Osborne seeks to appeal the district court’s
order adopting in part the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2012),
dismissing without prejudice his civil complaint against his
former employer for failure to state a claim. 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
Osborne seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order. † Accordingly, we
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and we deny as moot
Osborne’s motion to compel the production of documents. 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
†
Because Osborne may amend his complaint to cure the
defects identified by the district court, the dismissal order is
interlocutory and not appealable. See Chao v. Rivendell Woods,
Inc., 415 F.3d 342, 345 (4th Cir. 2005); Domino Sugar Corp. v.
Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066–67 (4th Cir.
1993).
2