Cynthia B. Woods v. South Carolina Department of Health & Human Services

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-1606
CYNTHIA B. WOODS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES;
MONA SECHREST; MARSHA BROWN; KIM BACKMAN; DR. PETE
LIGGETT,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
HOLLIE HOADWONIC; CHRISTIAN L. SOURA,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (3:18-cv-00834-MGL)
Submitted: September 26, 2019 Decided: September 30, 2019
Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Cynthia B. Woods, Appellant Pro Se. Vance J. Bettis, GIGNILLIAT, SAVITZ & BETTIS,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Cynthia B. Woods seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate
judge’s recommendation and dismissing, without prejudice, Woods’ amended civil
complaint against Defendants. After the district court dismissed Woods’ amended
complaint, Woods filed a second amended complaint and Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss, which is still pending in the district court. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory
and remand for further proceedings.
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). Because
Woods has attempted to cure the deficiencies in her amended complaint as identified by
the district court, and since Defendants’ motion to dismiss is still pending in the district
court, we find that the district court’s dismissal order is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local
Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). We therefore dismiss this appeal and
remand to the district court for further proceedings. Cf. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid
Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 630 (4th Cir. 2015). 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

-- 3 of 3 --