UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-2036

PHILLIP MICHAEL PRIDGEN, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JURGEN LEIJEKKEN, CEO Hireright; JANET MILLER, Manager, Hireright; WILL WAINRIGHT, Escalation Specialist, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:18-cv-01323-CCB)

Submitted: November 29, 2018 Decided: December 3, 2018

Before DUNCAN and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Phillip Michael Pridgen, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Meredith Lynn Schramm-Strosser, LITTLER MENDELSON PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Phillip Michael Pridgen, Sr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his civil action for lack of personal 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 (1949). Because it is possible that Pridgen could cure the defects in his complaint through amendment, the district court’s order he seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, 807 F.3d 619, 623-25, 628-30 (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 Pridgen to file an amended complaint. We deny Pridgen’s motion for appointment of counsel and 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