Jennifer Jasmaine v. Mr. Futrelle , 698 F. App'x 63 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6357
JENNIFER ANN JASMAINE, f/k/a Duane Leroy Fox,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MR. FUTRELLE, Head of Mental Health; M. MAGANA, RN Lead Nurse; A.
DAUGHETY, RN Lead Nurse; DR. ELIZABETH BYRD; DR OWENS;
OFFICER MILEY; SGT. JACKSON; OFFICER LINDSEY; CHARLENE
RICHARDSON; MS. COLLENS, Case Manager; MS. HACKET, Head Chaplain;
MR. DANILES, Administrator; FINESSE G. COUCH, Director; CLARENCE O.
ELLIS; JANE DOE, Director of Mental Health,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
JOHN DOES, of Grievance Resolution Board Members,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:15-ct-03294-FL)
Submitted: September 26, 2017 Decided: September 28, 2017
Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jennifer Ann Jasmaine, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Finarelli, Special Deputy Attorney
General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina;
Kelly Street Brown, Elizabeth Pharr McCullough, YOUNG MOORE & HENDERSON,
PA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Jennifer Ann Jasmaine seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing in part
her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. 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, 545-46 (1949). The order Jasmaine seeks to appeal is neither a final order
nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny as moot
Jasmaine’s motion for an update and 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
3