Nelson Bruce v. Bank of America, N.A. ( 2021 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-2297
NELSON L. BRUCE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a/k/a Bank of America,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:19-cv-03456-BHH-KDW)
Submitted: March 23, 2021 Decided: March 26, 2021
Before THACKER, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nelson L. Bruce, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Allen Calub, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nelson L. Bruce seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate
judge’s recommendation and denying Bruce’s motion to amend his complaint. For the
reasons that follow, we dismiss the appeal.
This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen
v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). Because Bruce’s action
remains pending in the district court, we conclude that the order Bruce seeks to appeal is
not a final order. See Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Cent. Pension Fund of Int’l Union of
Operating Eng’rs & Participating Emp’rs, 571 U.S. 177, 183 (2014) (“In the ordinary
course a final decision is one that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for
the court to do but execute the judgment.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Furthermore, because the order is neither unreviewable on appeal nor addressed to issues
separate from the merits of Bruce’s action, we conclude that the order is not an appealable
collateral order. See Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345, 349 (2006) (providing requirements
for collateral order appeal). Finally, the order on appeal does not fall within the scope of
appealable interlocutory orders listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1292.
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
2