Samuel Smith v. Jean Toal
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cv-00507-CMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999345956]. Mailed to: Samuel N. Smith. [14-1280]
Appeal: 14-1280
Doc: 11
Filed: 04/29/2014
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1280
SAMUEL N. SMITH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JEAN H. TOAL; RICK QUINN; T. STEPHEN LYNCH; WILLIAM J.
CONDON, JR.; SANDRA MATTHEWS; TRACEY COLTON GREEN; MITCHELL
WILLOUGHBY; JOHN M.S. HOEFER; WORLD CAPITAL BROKERAGE INC.;
ALLIANZ
LIFE
INSURANCE
COMPANY;
GAMEPLAN
FINANCIAL
MARKETING LLC; JOHN CARRIGG; S. JAHUE MOORE; TIFFANY
RICHARDSON; BRYAN CANTRELL; LINDSEY GRAHAM; ADDISON GRAVES
WILSON, SR.; ALAN WILSON; JOHN E. COURSON; WILLIAM N.
NETTLES; DAVID A. THOMAS; NIMRATI RANDHAWA HALEY; STATE OF
SOUTH CAROLINA; HENRY D. MCMASTER; GLENN MCCONNELL; FINRA;
DONITA
TODD;
RICH
O'DELL;
CINDI
SCOPPE;
DANIEL
E.
SHEAROUSE; MAJOR JOHN TATE; SUSAN B. LIPSCOMB,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (3:14-cv-00507-CMC)
Submitted:
April 24, 2014
Decided:
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Samuel N. Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
April 29, 2014
Appeal: 14-1280
Doc: 11
Filed: 04/29/2014
Pg: 2 of 3
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Appeal: 14-1280
Doc: 11
Filed: 04/29/2014
Pg: 3 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Samuel N. Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s
order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing without prejudice his civil complaint for lack of
jurisdiction.
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.
545-47 (1949).
28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P.
Beneficial
Indus.
Loan
Corp.,
337
U.S.
541,
The order Smith seeks to appeal is neither a
final order nor 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).
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
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?