
    Emmanuel Chukwuebuka UZOECHI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. David WILSON, President of Morgan State University; Dr. Kevin Banks, President of Division of Student Affairs; Mr. Seymour E. Chambers, Chief Judicial Affairs Officer; Stacie Sawyer, Assistant Prosecutor of State of Maryland, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 17-2159
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: January 31, 2018
    Decided: March 1, 2018
    
      Emmanuel Chukwuebuka Uzoechi, Appellant Pro' Se. Matthew Paul Reinhart, OFFICE OF THE'ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Emmanuel Chukwuebuka Uzoechi appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss on several of Uzoechi’s claims. Although “[t]he parties ... have not questioned our jurisdiction ..,, we have an independent obligation to verify the existence of appellate jurisdiction” and may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Ordinarily, a district court order is not final until it has resolved all claims as to all parties.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “Regardless of the label given a district court decision, if it appears from the record that the district court has not adjudicated all of the issues in a case, then there is no final order.” Id.

While Uzoechi’s complaint is far from a model of clarity, his complaint is entitled to liberal interpretation. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (per curiam). Read in such a light, Uzoechi’s complaint alleged that Morgan State University’s disciplinary procedure violated his due process rights. Uzoechi’s complaint similarly raises a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Because the district court did not rule on those claims, it “never issued a final decision” Porter, 803 F.3d at 699, and we lack jurisdiction over the appeal.

Accordingly, we deny Uzoechi’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dismiss the appeal, and remand to the district court for consideration of Uzoechi’s unaddressed claims. We express no opinion on the ultimate disposition of those claims, nor do we express any opinion regarding the district court’s dismissal of Uzoechi’s claims for violations of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681 to 1688 (2012), negligence, and malicious prosecution. 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  