UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1649
JAMES E. COPLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MR. RICHARD FAIRBANKS, CEO; CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE CORP.;
CAPITAL ONE CORP.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin,
Chief District Judge. (2:10-cv-01371)
Submitted: October 18, 2011 Decided: October 20, 2011
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James E. Copley, Appellant Pro Se. Bruce Michael Jacobs,
Brienne T. Marco, Niall Anthony Paul, SPILMAN, THOMAS & BATTLE,
PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James E. Copley seeks to appeal the district court’s
order adopting the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and
recommendation and dismissing, without prejudice, Copley’s civil
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 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 Copley seeks
to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order because it is possible for
Copley 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) (holding that a dismissal without prejudice is not
appealable unless it is clear that no amendment to the complaint
“could cure the defects in the plaintiff’s case” (internal
quotation marks omitted)); see also Chao v. Rivendell Woods,
Inc., 415 F.3d 342, 345 (4th Cir. 2005) (explaining that, under
Domino Sugar, this court must “examine the appealability of a
dismissal without prejudice based on the specific facts of the
case in order to guard against piecemeal litigation and
repetitive appeals”).
2
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
3