United States v. Cory Jacobs ( 2022 )

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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. § 2255 motion
“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