Constance Adamson v. World Government Communist Pty

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:15-cv-03497-HMH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999762159]. Mailed to: C. Adamson. [15-2474]

Appeal: 15-2474

Doc: 6

Filed: 02/25/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2474

CONSTANCE HAUCK ADAMSON,
a/k/a Constance S. Hauck,

a/k/a

Constance

Hauck

Adamson,

Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WORLD GOVERNMENT COMMUNIST PARTY; COMMUNIST PARTY OF WORLD
GOVERNMENT; SOCIALIST PARTY OF WORLD GOVERNMENT; WORLD
GOVERNMENT ON MY INSURED PROPERTY,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:15-cv-03497-HMH)

Submitted:

February 23, 2016

Decided:

February 25, 2016

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Constance Hauck Adamson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2474

Doc: 6

Filed: 02/25/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Constance
court’s

Hauck

order

Adamson

adopting

the

seeks

to

appeal

magistrate

the

judge’s

district

report

and

recommendation and dismissing her complaint without prejudice.
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,

545-47

(1949).

Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be
remedied by the filing of an amended complaint, we conclude that
the order Adamson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor
an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

Domino Sugar

Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67
(4th Cir. 1993).
jurisdiction.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of

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