Michael A. Leon v. Ogletree, Deakin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to expedite decision [999117151-2] Originating case number: 6:13-cv-00072-TMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999121441].. [13-1425]

Appeal: 13-1425

Doc: 19

Filed: 06/04/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1425

MICHAEL A. LEON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC, a South
Carolina professional corporation; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(6:13-cv-00072-TMC)

Submitted:

May 30, 2013

Decided:

June 4, 2013

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael A. Leon, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-1425

Doc: 19

Filed: 06/04/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Michael A. Leon seeks to appeal the district court’s
order

accepting

the

magistrate

judge’s

recommendation

and

dismissing without prejudice Leon’s civil complaint for lack of
jurisdiction.

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over

final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory
and collateral orders.

28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P.

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545–
46 (1949).
order

nor

The order Leon seeks to appeal is neither a final
an

appealable

interlocutory

or

collateral

order

because it is possible for him to cure the pleading deficiencies
in the complaint that were identified by the district court.
See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d
1064,

1066–67

(4th

Cir.

1993).

Accordingly,

appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

we

dismiss

the

We further deny Leon’s motion

to expedite as moot.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
DISMISSED

2