Dennis Temple, a/k/a Dennis Maurice Temple v. Owen McClelland LLC

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7254
DENNIS TEMPLE, a/k/a Dennis Maurice Temple,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OWEN MCCLELLAND LLC; ALL SAFE STORAGE CO.; OWE M. ROBERTS,
IV, in his individual capacity; HELEN HART PILLANS ROBERTS,
in her individual capacity; KIMBERLY EDWARDS CHEWNING,
Manager, in her individual capacity; JAMES SINGLETON,
Sheriff, in his individual capacity; GREG REED, Captain, in
his individual capacity; SCOTT ARNOLD, Sergeant, in his
individual capacity; JERRY MOSS, Sergeant, in his individual
capacity; CHRISSY T. ADAMS, Solicitor, in her individual
capacity; ASSISTANT SOLICITOR LINDSEY S. SIMMONS, in her
individual capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:15-cv-00652-JFA)
Submitted: December 15, 2015 Decided: December 18, 2015
Before GREGORY and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Dennis Temple, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Dennis Temple seeks to appeal the district court’s order
adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing his civil action without prejudice. 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 the deficiencies identified by the district court may be
remedied by the filing of an amended complaint, we conclude that
the order Temple seeks to appeal 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).
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 of 3 --