Astrop v. Newton

Fourth Circuit

Astrop v. Newton

667 F. App'x 832

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedAugust 9, 2016

DocketNo. 16-1208

StatusPublished

This text of 667 F. App'x 832 (Astrop v. Newton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Astrop v. Newton, 667 F. App'x 832 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Henry Lewis Astrop seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter 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, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Astrop seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See [833]*833Goode v. Central Va. Legal Aid, 807 F.3d 619 (4th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Astrop to file an amended complaint. 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Henry Lewis Astrop seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter 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, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Astrop seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See [833]*833Goode v. Central Va. Legal Aid, 807 F.3d 619 (4th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Astrop to file an amended complaint. 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

667 F. App'x 832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/astrop-v-newton-ca4-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack