Ronnie Moss v. Maximus Federal Service

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cv-00562-JAG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999349154]. Mailed to: Moss. [13-2469]

Appeal: 13-2469

Doc: 4

Filed: 05/02/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2469

RONNIE LYNN MOSS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
MAXIMUS FEDERAL SERVICES; DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES; TODAY'S OPTIONS,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
John A. Gibney, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:13-cv-00562-JAG)

Submitted:

March 18, 2014

Before SHEDD and
Circuit Judge.

DIAZ,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

May 2, 2014

HAMILTON,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronnie Lynn Moss, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-2469

Doc: 4

Filed: 05/02/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Ronnie Lynn Moss seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing without prejudice the particularized complaint
he filed in his challenge to the denial of a Medicare claim.
The complaint was dismissed after Moss failed to comply with the
court’s

direction

documentation
remedies.

to

allege

demonstrating

additional

his

facts

exhaustion

of

and

provide

administrative

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and
collateral

orders,

54(b); Cohen

v.

545-46 (1949).

28

U.S.C.

Beneficial

§ 1292

Indus.

(2012);

Loan

Fed.

Corp.,

R.

337

Civ.

U.S.

P.

541,

The order Moss seeks to appeal is neither a

final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order,
as Moss may be able to save his action by filing an amended
complaint
court.

curing

the

deficiencies

identified

by

the

district

Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10

F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).
appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Accordingly, we dismiss the

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