Carol Pizzuto v. Scott Smith ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1887
CAROL L. GRAY PIZZUTO,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
SCOTT R. SMITH; KEITH C. GAMBLE; STEPHEN M. FOWLER; D. LUKE
FURBEE; OFFICER D. L. ROBINSON; HONORABLE JAMES P. MAZZONE;
HONORABLE ARTHUR M. RECHT; HONORABLE RONALD E. WILSON;
KENNETH W. BLAKE; JULIE L. KREEFER; TONI VANCAMP,
individually and collectively,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
OFFICER S. A. ZIMMERMAN,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:12-cv-00149-FPS-JES)
Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 23, 2013
Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carol L. Pizzuto, Appellant Pro Se. Diane G. Senakievich, David
Lee Wyant, BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC, Wheeling, West Virginia;
Stephen Mark Fowler, Kenneth Louis Hopper, Keith C. Gamble,
PULLIN, FOWLER, FLANAGAN, BROWN & POE, PLLC, Morgantown, West
Virginia; Deva A. Solomon, Monte Lee Williams, STEPTOE &
JOHNSON, LLP, Morgantown, West Virginia; John Michael Hedges,
Teresa Jean Lyons, HEDGES LYONS & SHEPHERD, Morgantown, West
Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Carol. L. Gray Pizzuto seeks to appeal the district
court’s order adopting the report and recommendation of the
magistrate judge. This court may exercise jurisdiction only
over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain
interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Pizzuto seeks to appeal
is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Pizzuto’s motion for a
transcript 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