Tito Knox v. Elena Klimbal

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:17-cv-00713-HMH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000140557]. Mailed to: Tito Lemont Knox. [17-1620]

Appeal: 17-1620

Doc: 10

Filed: 08/21/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1620

TITO KNOX,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ELENA KLIMBAL, PMHNPPC; OFFICER GRAHAM,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:17-cv-00713-HMH)

Submitted: August 17, 2017

Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tito Lemont Knox, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Decided: August 21, 2017

Appeal: 17-1620

Doc: 10

Filed: 08/21/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Tito Lemont Knox seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and dismissing without prejudice his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint for failing to state a claim. 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 could be remedied by the filing of an amended complaint, we conclude
that the order Knox seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory
or collateral order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d
1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we remand the case to the district court
with instructions to allow Knox to file an amended complaint. See Goode v. Cent. Va.
Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015). 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 AND REMANDED

2