United States of America v. Kamel O’meek Terrell

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-7538
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KAMEL O’MEEK TERRELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:14-cr-00330-TDS-1;
1:18-cv-00651-TDS-JEP)
Submitted: February 21, 2019 Decided: February 26, 2019
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kamel O’Meek Terrell, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Kamel O’Meek Terrell seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the
magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion
without prejudice. This Court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders and certain
interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). Because the
district court dismissed without prejudice specifically directing Terrell to file an amended
motion on the proper § 2255 forms, we conclude the district court’s dismissal order is
neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Goode v.
Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
In Goode, we remanded to the district court with instructions to allow amendment
of the complaint. Id. at 630. Here, however, the district court already has afforded
Terrell the opportunity to amend. Accordingly, we direct on remand that the district
court, in its discretion, either afford Terrell another opportunity to file an amended
motion or dismiss the motion with prejudice, thereby rendering its dismissal order a final,
appealable judgment. 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 of 2 --