Edward Macias v. Federal Aviation Admin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999197333-2] Originating case number: 1:13-cv-00580-TDS-JEP Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999220835]. Mailed to: Edward Thomas Macias. [13-2047]

Appeal: 13-2047

Doc: 10

Filed: 10/18/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2047

EDWARD THOMAS MACIAS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00580-TDS-JEP)

Submitted:

October 15, 2013

Before WILKINSON and
Senior Circuit Judge.

GREGORY,

Decided:

Circuit

October 18, 2013

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Thomas Macias, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-2047

Doc: 10

Filed: 10/18/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Edward

Thomas

Macias

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s judgment adopting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge

and

dismissing

his

civil

action

without

prejudice.

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, 545-47 (1949).
Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be
remedied by the filing of an amended complaint and an amended
application

seeking

leave

to

proceed

in

forma

pauperis,

we

conclude that the judgment Macias seeks to appeal is neither a
final

judgment

judgment.

nor

an

appealable

interlocutory

or

collateral

Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,

10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).
Accordingly,
pauperis

we

deny

and

the

appeal

dismiss

We dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

leave

to

for

because

presented

in

proceed

lack

of

in

forma

jurisdiction.

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2