Hinton v. Lanham Ford Motor Co ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-2074
    DESHANTA HINTON,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    LANHAM FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
    Defendant - Appellee,
    and
    JOHN DOE, JR.,    General Manager, Lanham Ford
    Motor Company;   PAUL TIMKO, Special Agent for
    the FBI; KAREN   NESTER, Special Agent for the
    FBI; UNKNOWN     FBI AGENTS; UNITED STATES
    DEPARTMENT OF     JUSTICE, Federal Bureau of
    Investigation,
    Defendants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
    (8:05-cv-02425-AW)
    Submitted:   August 13, 2007                 Decided:   August 21, 2007
    Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    DeShanta Hinton, Appellant Pro Se. John Paul Lynch, Charles Henry
    Henderson, MCNAMEE, HOSEA, JERNIGAN, KIM, GREENAN & WALKER, PA,
    Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    - 2 -
    PER CURIAM:
    DeShanta Hinton seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order dismissing certain defendants in her 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     (2000)
    suit. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders,
    
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral
    orders, 
    28 U.S.C. § 1292
     (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.
    Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 
    337 U.S. 541
     (1949).              In this case,
    claims remain pending in the district court against several other
    defendants.     The order Hinton seeks to appeal is neither a final
    order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.                   See
    Baird v. Palmer, 
    114 F.3d 39
    , 42 (4th Cir.1997).            Accordingly, we
    deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis 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   the   court   and     argument   would   not    aid   the
    decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-2074

Filed Date: 8/21/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/31/2014