Olandio Ray Workman v. Metro PCS Mobile Phone Company, No. 17-6952 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6952 OLANDIO RAY WORKMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. METRO PCS MOBILE PHONE COMPANY; MR. RICHARDSON; METRO PCS; METRO PCS MOBILE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (6:17-cv-01208-RBH) Submitted: December 21, 2017 Decided: December 27, 2017 Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Olandio Ray Workman, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Olandio Ray Workman seeks to appeal from the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint against Metro PCS Mobile Phone Company and Mr. Richardson, the registered agent for Metro PCS. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory and remand for further proceedings. 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). The district court dismissed the complaint against the Defendants on the ground that they were not acting under color of state law. Because Workman may be able to remedy the deficiencies by filing an amended complaint, we conclude that the order Workman 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 dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Workman 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.
