Prentis Herndon v. Alutiiq Education and Training ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                          UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 16-1964
    PRENTIS L. HERNDON,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ALUTIIQ EDUCATION AND TRAINING, LLC,
    Defendant - Appellant,
    and
    JANINA ZEQUEIRA-PEREZ,
    Defendant.
    --------------------------------------
    AHTNA, INC.; ARCTIC SLOPE REGIONAL CORPORATION; BRISTOL BAY
    NATIVE CORPORATION; CALISTA CORPORATION; CHUGACH ALASKA
    CORPORATION; KONIAG, INC.; OLD HARBOR NATIVE CORPORATION;
    SEALASKA CORPORATION,
    Amici Supporting Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:16-cv-00072-AWA-LRL)
    Submitted: April 27, 2017                                      Decided: May 5, 2017
    Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Ramsay C. McCullough, Kristina H. Vaquera, JACKSON LEWIS PC, Norfolk, Virginia,
    for Appellant. Prentis L. Herndon, Appellee Pro Se. Kevin Mark Cuddy, Sarah
    Langberg, STOEL RIVES LLP, Anchorage, Alaska, for Amici Supporting Appellant.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Alutiiq Education & Training, LLC (“AET”) seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying its motion for summary judgment. 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 AET seeks to appeal is neither a final
    order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp.,
    
    546 U.S. 500
    , 515-16 (2006); see also 
    43 U.S.C. § 1626
    (g) (2012). Accordingly, we
    dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and deny Herndon’s motion to appoint
    counsel. 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-1964

Filed Date: 5/5/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021