Olandio Ray Workman v. Morrison Healthcare

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:17-cv-01229-RBH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000305914]. Mailed to: Olandio Ray Workman GREENVILLE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER 20 McGee Street Greenville, SC 29601. [17-7621]

Appeal: 17-7621

Doc: 9

Filed: 06/04/2018

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7621

OLANDIO RAY WORKMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MORRISON HEALTHCARE; THERESA DRUMMOND; BON SECOURS
HEALTHCARE SYSTEM,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Greenville. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (6:17-cv-01229-RBH)

Submitted: April 19, 2018

Decided: June 4, 2018

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

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Olandio Ray Workman, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-7621

Doc: 9

Filed: 06/04/2018

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Olandio Ray Workman seeks to appeal from the district court’s orders accepting
the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory and remand for
further proceedings.
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 order from which Workman seeks to appeal does not “clearly preclude
amendment,” Workman may be able to remedy the deficiencies identified by the district
court by filing an amended complaint. Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal order 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).
We therefore dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Goode, 807 F.3d at 630.
In Goode, we remanded to the district court with instructions to allow amendment of the
complaint. Id. Here, however, the district court already has afforded Workman the
opportunity to amend. Accordingly, we direct on remand that the district court, in its
discretion, either afford Workman another opportunity to file an amended complaint or
dismiss the complaint with prejudice, thereby rendering the dismissal order a final,
appealable order.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

2

Appeal: 17-7621

Doc: 9

Filed: 06/04/2018

Pg: 3 of 3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED AND REMANDED

3