794 Fed.Appx. 347 (4th Cir. 2020), 19-7280, Vaughn v. Correct Care Solutions

• Docket Nº: 19-7280
• Citation: 794 Fed.Appx. 347
• Opinion Judge: PER CURIAM:
• Party Name: Douglas R. VAUGHN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, Medical Staff / Nurses; Nurse Terry, Intake Nurse; Nurse Alvin, Intake Nurse; Nurse Chelton, Intake Nurse, Defendants-Appellees.
• Attorney: Douglas R. Vaughn, Appellant Pro Se.
• Judge Panel: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
• Case Date: February 24, 2020
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Page 347

794 Fed.Appx. 347 (4th Cir. 2020)

Douglas R. VAUGHN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, Medical Staff / Nurses; Nurse Terry, Intake Nurse; Nurse Alvin, Intake Nurse; Nurse Chelton, Intake Nurse, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-7280

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

February 24, 2020

Submitted: February 20, 2020

UNPUBLISHED

Editorial Note:

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:19-cv-00565-LMB-IDD)

Douglas R. Vaughn, Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Douglas R. Vaughn appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2018) complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim. The district court noted that Vaughn could feasibly state a claim for relief with a clearer statement of facts. We may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2018), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2018); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because the district court’s order explicitly states that Vaughn could potentially cure the defects identified, we conclude that the order Vaughn seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory order. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015); 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 and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Vaughn to amend his complaint. Goode, 807 F.3d at 630. 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