Filed: Feb. 16, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2234 ZEBEDEE MILBY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL REGISTRAR, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:17-cv-00590-MHL) Submitted: February 15, 2018 Decided: February 16, 2018 Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Zebedee M
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2234 ZEBEDEE MILBY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL REGISTRAR, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:17-cv-00590-MHL) Submitted: February 15, 2018 Decided: February 16, 2018 Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Zebedee Mi..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-2234
ZEBEDEE MILBY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL REGISTRAR,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:17-cv-00590-MHL)
Submitted: February 15, 2018 Decided: February 16, 2018
Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Zebedee Milby, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Zebedee Milby seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his complaint
without prejudice. Before addressing the merits of Milby’s appeal, we first must be
assured that we have jurisdiction. Porter v. Zook,
803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015). We
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). The district court
determined that Milby failed to allege any facts upon which the court could conclude that
Milby had standing to raise his claim. Because Milby might be able to cure this defect by
filing an amendment to the complaint, we conclude that the order Milby 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 Milby 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