-
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6014 Doc: 16 Filed: 09/27/2022 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-6014 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CORY LEE JACOBS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:18-cr-00245-TDS-2; 1:21- cv-00098-TDS-JEP) Submitted: September 15, 2022 Decided: September 27, 2022 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and DIAZ and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cory Lee Jacobs, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6014 Doc: 16 Filed: 09/27/2022 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Cory Lee Jacobs seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his
28 U.S.C. § 2255motion “without prejudice to [his] promptly filing a corrected motion on the proper § 2255 forms.” We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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). “[A]n order that dismisses a complaint with leave to amend is not a final decision because it means that the district court is not finished with the case.” Britt v. DeJoy,
45 F.4th 790, , No. 20-1620,
2022 WL 3590436, at *3 (4th Cir. Aug. 17, 2022) (en banc) (published order) (citing Jung v. K. & D. Min. Co.,
356 U.S. 335, 336-37 (1958)). If Jacobs wishes to appeal from this order, he must first “waive [his] right to amend the [motion] by requesting that the district court take further action to finalize its decision,” Britt,
2022 WL 3590436, at *6 (quoting Jung,
356 U.S. at 337), and he “must obtain an additional, final decision from the district court finalizing its judgment.”
Id.Because Jacobs has not done so, the order Jacobs seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and we deny Jacobs’ pending motions. 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
Document Info
Docket Number: 22-6014
Filed Date: 9/27/2022
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 9/28/2022