MYER v. NORTHAM, 19-1035. (2019)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20190805059
Visitors: 3
Filed: Aug. 05, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 05, 2019
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM . Glenn Myer seeks to appeal the district court's order granting Defendants' motions to dismiss his civil action for failure to state a claim for relief and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 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. Loa
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM . Glenn Myer seeks to appeal the district court's order granting Defendants' motions to dismiss his civil action for failure to state a claim for relief and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 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..
More
UNPUBLISHED
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Glenn Myer seeks to appeal the district court's order granting Defendants' motions to dismiss his civil action for failure to state a claim for relief and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 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). After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not rule on Myer's claims against Officer C.M. Cotone, who was added as a defendant in Myer's amended complaint filed on October 15, 2018, following the district court's grant of Myer's motion to amend. Thus, the district court's order is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696-97 (4th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the action for the district court to consider these claims. 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.
Source: Leagle
