Phillip O'Briant v. Nestle Dreyer's Ice Cream ( 2018 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-1828
PHILLIP O’BRIANT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NESTLE DREYER’S ICE CREAM; KELLI QUINN, Supervisor; CAITLIN
BERMAN, HR Generalist; LANIK MCINTYRE, Human Resources Manager;
BILL WOODS, Plant Manager; TERRENCE MURRAY; LISA NEASOM;
LINDA HASTIE; DAVE BARBOUR,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:18-cv-01048-ELH)
Submitted: November 9, 2018 Decided: November 30, 2018
Before MOTZ, AGEE, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Phillip O’Briant, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Phillip O’Briant seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his amended
complaint as time-barred based on the limitations period for filing a Title VII lawsuit. In
its final order, the district court did not adjudicate O’Briant’s claims under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1981 (2012) or his argument that his action was timely filed within the four-year statute
of limitations period applicable to those claims. See Lee v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 802 F.3d
626, 636 & n.8 (4th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). 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 that O’Briant seeks to appeal is neither a
final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Porter v. Zook, 803
F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015) (“[I]f 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.”). Accordingly, we
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court to
consider O’Briant’s Section 1981 claims. 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