Campitelli v. Osborne ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 02-1606
    DIANA M. CAMPITELLI,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    THOMAS L. OSBORNE; MARJORIE D. NESBITT,
    Administrator, Human Resources; E. KENNEDY,
    President, Kennedy Personnel Services; STEPHEN
    KENNEDY; GISELE M. MATHEWS, Assistant Attorney
    General, MDOT; ROGER D. FORD,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    and
    PARRIS N. GLENDENING, Governor,
    Defendant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, Chief District Judge. (CA-
    00-2796-L)
    Submitted:   December 19, 2002            Decided:   January 13, 2003
    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Diana M. Campitelli, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,
    Attorney General, John Charles Bell, Gisele Marie Mathews, OFFICE
    OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
    Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Diana M. Campitelli appeals from the district court’s order
    declining to issue a temporary restraining order.   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).     The order Campitelli seeks to
    appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
    collateral order.   See Virginia v. Tenneco, Inc., 
    538 F.2d 1026
    ,
    1029-30 (4th Cir. 1976).   Accordingly, we deny Campitelli’s motion
    to consolidate this appeal with Appeal No. 02-2325, deny her motion
    for emergency relief, 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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-1606

Filed Date: 1/13/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014