Lorenzo Stephens v. US

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 0:16-cv-00149-BHH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000167547]. Mailed to: L Stephens. [17-6192]

Appeal: 17-6192

Doc: 17

Filed: 10/04/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6192

LORENZO DESHON STEPHENS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (0:16-cv-00149-BHH)

Submitted: September 27, 2017

Decided: October 4, 2017

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lorenzo Deshon Stephens, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, Assistant United States
Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-6192

Doc: 17

Filed: 10/04/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Lorenzo Deshon Stephens seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting in
part the magistrate judge’s report, granting the Defendant’s motion to dismiss, and
dismissing Stephens’ 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, 545-46 (1949). The district court identified deficiencies in two of
Stephens’ claims that Stephens may be able to remedy by filing an amended complaint.
Specifically, the district court dismissed Stephens’ breach of confidentiality claim for
failure to allege that the person committing the wrongful act was a physician, and
dismissed the negligence claim for failure to plead facts substantiating Stephens’ alleged
damages. Because Stephens might be able to cure these defects by filing an amendment
to the complaint, we conclude that the order Stephens seeks to appeal is neither a final
order nor an appealable interlocutory 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 the appeal
for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow
Stephens 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