Davis v. Margerum , 32 F. App'x 93 ( 2002 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-1096
YVETTE J. DAVIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
GAIL MARGERUM, Doctor, Mount Vernon Emergency
Room Physician; J. E. ALFRED, Officer, Mount
Vernon Police Department of Fairfax County,
Badge #2683; MATTIE L. PALMORE, Magistrate of
Fairfax County, Mount Vernon Police
Department; STEPHEN W. ARMSTRONG, Attorney at
Law; ROBERT B. MACHEN, Attorney at Law;
DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES, Office for
Children,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
LATIFA ZAMAN, Licensed Daycare Provider,
Office for Children,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (CA-01-1467-A)
Submitted: March 21, 2002 Decided: April 8, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Yvette J. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. M. Pierce Rucker, II, Todd
David Anderson, SANDS, ANDERSON, MARKS & MILLER, Richmond,
Virginia; James Edward Wilcox, Jr., Fairfax, Virginia; Ralph
Nicholas Boccarosse, Jr., SICILIANO, ELLIS, DYER & BOCCAROSSE,
Fairfax, Virginia; Robert B. Machen, Annandale, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Yvette Davis appeals the district court’s orders filed on
December 12, 2001, and entered on December 19, 2001, granting
motions to dismiss her civil action against some, but not all,
Defendants. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because
the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction
only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain
interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S.
541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor
an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Robinson v.
Parke-Davis & Co., 685 F.2d 912 (4th Cir. 1982).
We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We deny Defendants
Machen’s and Armstrong’s motion to dismiss the appeal and 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