Michael Breyan v. Classification Employee

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:17-cv-00062-BHH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000106809]. Mailed to: M Breyan. [17-6175]

Appeal: 17-6175

Doc: 13

Filed: 06/26/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6175

MICHAEL BREYAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CLASSIFICATION EMPLOYEES,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:17-cv-00062-BHH)

Submitted: June 22, 2017

Decided: June 26, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Breyan, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-6175

Doc: 13

Filed: 06/26/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Michael Breyan seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s
recommendation and dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. 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 filing an amended complaint, we conclude that the
order Breyan seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral
order. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 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 this appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district
court with instructions to allow Breyan to amend his complaint. Goode, 807 F.3d at 630. 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