OSBORNE v. LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY, 14-2070. (2015)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20150316091
Visitors: 9
Filed: Mar. 16, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 16, 2015
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM . Douglas E. Osborne seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting in part the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) (2012), dismissing without prejudice his civil complaint against his former employer for failure to state a claim. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collat
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM . Douglas E. Osborne seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting in part the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) (2012), dismissing without prejudice his civil complaint against his former employer for failure to state a claim. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collate..
More
UNPUBLISHED
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Douglas E. Osborne seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting in part the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2012), dismissing without prejudice his civil complaint against his former employer for failure 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, 545-46 (1949). The order Osborne seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.† Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and we deny as moot Osborne's motion to compel the production of documents. 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.
FootNotes
* The opinion is filed by a quorum pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
† Because Osborne may amend his complaint to cure the defects identified by the district court, the dismissal order is interlocutory and not appealable. See Chao v. Rivendell Woods, Inc., 415 F.3d 342, 345 (4th Cir. 2005); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).
Source: Leagle
