USCA4 Appeal: 23-1693 Doc: 13 Filed: 10/08/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1693

DEREK N. JARVIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DISTRICT TACO, LLC,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:23-cv-01029-DKC)

Submitted: September 4, 2024 Decided: October 8, 2024

Before HEYTENS and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derek N. Jarvis, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Rigatuso, ECCLESTON & WOLF, PC, Hanover, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1693 Doc: 13 Filed: 10/08/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Derek N. Jarvis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to

remand, dismissing his complaint with prejudice in part and without prejudice in part, and

providing him 21 days to file an amended complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction.

Although the parties do not question our jurisdiction, we “have an independent

obligation to verify the existence of appellate jurisdiction.” Williamson v. Stirling,

(4th Cir. 2018) (quotation marks removed). We may exercise jurisdiction

only over final orders,

, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders,

; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,

(1949).

An order dismissing a complaint without prejudice in full or in part is sometimes

final and appealable. That is, when a district court dismisses a complaint without leave to

amend, the order dismissing the complaint is final and appealable. Britt v. DeJoy,

(4th Cir. 2022) (en banc). On the other hand, when a district court dismisses a

complaint with leave to amend, that order “is not a final decision because it means that the

district court is not finished with the case.”

. And such an order is nonfinal even

if the plaintiff declines to amend the complaint unless the plaintiff “request[s] that the

district court enter a final decision dismissing [the] case without leave to amend” and the

district court does so.

.

The same rule applies when the district court establishes a deadline to file an

amended complaint and the plaintiff does not file before the deadline.

. In that

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1693 Doc: 13 Filed: 10/08/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

situation, the district court should “issue a final order upon the expiration of th[e] deadline.”

. Or the plaintiff can “elect to stand on her complaint by waiving her right to

amend and requesting, and obtaining, a finalized decision from the district court.”

At

bottom, the plaintiff must obtain an order that ends the proceedings before the district court

before appealing.

Here, the district court denied Jarvis’s motion to remand, dismissed his complaint

with prejudice in part and without prejudice in part, and provided him 21 days to file an

amended complaint. But Jarvis did not file an amended complaint. Nor did Jarvis ask the

district court to issue a final order so that he could appeal. Moreover, despite the expiration

of the 21-day period, the district court never entered an order terminating the proceedings

before it. The order dismissing Jarvis’s complaint with leave to amend is thus nonfinal and

not appealable.

Additionally, “an order denying a motion to remand, standing alone, is . . . not final

and immediately appealable.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis,

(1996) (quotation

marks and alterations removed). Thus, the district court’s order denying Jarvis’s motion to

remand is likewise nonfinal and not appealable.

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

3