Jerome Want v. Kevin Cerrone, No. 16-2105 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2105 JEROME WANT, Lead Plaintiff, Elderly & Handicapped Riders of Washington County Transit, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KEVIN CERRONE, Director, Washington Co. Transit; JAMES STERLING, Director of Public Works; TERRY L. BAKER, Chairman of the County Board of Supervisors; PETE K. RAHN, Secretary, Maryland State Department of Transportation, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-01854-JFM) Submitted: April 25, 2017 Decided: May 3, 2017 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome Want, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jerome Want seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing some of the claims in his civil complaint with prejudice and the remainder without prejudice. 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, 545–47 (1949). Because the district court identified deficiencies that Want may remedy by filing an amended complaint, we conclude that the order Want seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623–24 (4th Cir. 2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066–67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we deny Want’s motion to appoint counsel, deny as moot his motion to expedite, and dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We “remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow [Want] to amend his complaint.” Goode, 807 F.3d at 630. 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 AND REMANDED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.