
    Royal POLLARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mr. REYNOLDS, Major/supervisor; Mr. Sapp, R.R.J. Officer; Mr. Laron Deloatch, R.R.J. Officer; Ms. Spratley, R.R.J. (Grievance Coordinator); Mr. Langley, R.R.J. (Captain); Mr. Powell, R.R.J. (Opr Sergant/coordinator); Mr. Brown (#142), R.R.J. (Security Officer); Mr. Jeffery Newton, R.R.J. (Superintendent); Officer Martinez, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-6318
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 23, 2016
    Decided: June 29, 2016
    Royal Pollard, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Royal Pollard seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by the filing of an amended complaint, we conclude that the order Pollard seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an ap-pealable interlocutory or collateral order. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).

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  