Althea Marie Hughes v. Bank of America

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999938102-3] Originating case number: 3:16-cv-00672-HEH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000015837]. Mailed to: Althea Marie Hughes P. O. Box 323 Prince George, VA 23875. [16-2026]

Appeal: 16-2026

Doc: 10

Filed: 02/02/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2026

ALTHEA MARIE HUGHES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:16-cv-00672-HEH)

Submitted:

January 31, 2017

Decided:

February 2, 2017

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Althea Marie Hughes, Appellant Pro Se.
Jr., SAMUEL I. WHITE, PC, Virginia
Appellee.

Ronald James Guillot,
Beach, Virginia, for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-2026

Doc: 10

Filed: 02/02/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Althea Marie Hughes seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing her civil complaint without prejudice pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012).

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, 545-46 (1949).

Because Hughes may be

able to remedy the deficiencies identified by the district court
by

filing

an

amended

complaint

stating

sufficient

facts

to

support her claims, the order Hughes seeks to appeal is neither
a

final

order.

order

nor

an

appealable

interlocutory

or

collateral

Goode v. Central Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, 807 F.3d 619, 623-

24 (4th Cir. 2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local
Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).

Accordingly,

we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the
case to the district court with instructions to allow Hughes to
file

an

amended

transcripts

at

complaint.

government

We

expense.

deny
We

Hughes’
dispense

motion
with

for
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 AND REMANDED
2