UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7032
STEVEN HOWARD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ELKINS CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; RANDOLPH COUNTY
SHERIFF’S OFFICE; WEST VIRGINIA STATE POLICE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior
District Judge. (2:06-cv-00074-REM)
Submitted: September 12, 2007 Decided: September 21, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven Howard, Appellant Pro Se. John Everett Busch, BUSCH, ZURBUCH
& THOMPSON, PLLC, Elkins, West Virginia; Virginia Grottendieck
Lanham, South Charleston, West Virginia; John A. Hoyer, STATE
POLICE LEGAL COUNSEL, South Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Steven Howard seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and
dismissing his civil rights complaint without prejudice for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. This court may
exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291
(2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.
Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). Because the deficiency
identified by the district court--that the complaint did not assert
facts in support of its legal conclusions--may be remedied by the
filing of a complaint that articulates adequate facts, we conclude
that the order Howard seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor
an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Domino Sugar
Corp. v. Sugar Worker’s Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th
Cir. 1993) (a dismissal without prejudice is not generally
appealable). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 2 -