UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1280
SAMUEL N. SMITH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JEAN H. TOAL; RICK QUINN; T. STEPHEN LYNCH; WILLIAM J.
CONDON, JR.; SANDRA MATTHEWS; TRACEY COLTON GREEN; MITCHELL
WILLOUGHBY; JOHN M.S. HOEFER; WORLD CAPITAL BROKERAGE INC.;
ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; GAMEPLAN FINANCIAL
MARKETING LLC; JOHN CARRIGG; S. JAHUE MOORE; TIFFANY
RICHARDSON; BRYAN CANTRELL; LINDSEY GRAHAM; ADDISON GRAVES
WILSON, SR.; ALAN WILSON; JOHN E. COURSON; WILLIAM N.
NETTLES; DAVID A. THOMAS; NIMRATI RANDHAWA HALEY; STATE OF
SOUTH CAROLINA; HENRY D. MCMASTER; GLENN MCCONNELL; FINRA;
DONITA TODD; RICH O'DELL; CINDI SCOPPE; DANIEL E.
SHEAROUSE; MAJOR JOHN TATE; SUSAN B. LIPSCOMB,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (3:14-cv-00507-CMC)
Submitted: April 24, 2014 Decided: April 29, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Samuel N. Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Samuel N. Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s
order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing without prejudice his civil complaint for lack of
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,
545-47 (1949). The order Smith seeks to appeal is neither a
final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order
because it is possible for him to cure the pleading deficiencies
in the complaint that were identified by the district court.
See 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
3