UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1285
DAWN NORMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RHODA PATNETLLI; BONECA NORMAN; ANNIE WILLIAMS; ISABELLE
HILLARD; CLAUDINE REEVES; NETTIA CONSELLE; JANE DOE; JOHN
DOE,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (3:13-cv-00041-JRS)
Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 3, 2013
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dawn Norman, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dawn Norman seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing her civil complaint without prejudice for failure to
comply with a court order directing her to file a particularized
amended complaint. This court may exercise jurisdiction only
over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain
interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Norman seeks to appeal
is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
collateral order. Because Norman can remedy the deficiencies
identified by the district court by filing an amended complaint
following the instructions of the district court, we conclude
that the district court’s order is neither final nor otherwise
appealable. 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. 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
2