Shannon Greene v. City of Virginia Beach ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • USCA4 Appeal: 22-1140      Doc: 20         Filed: 12/28/2023    Pg: 1 of 2
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 22-1140
    SHANNON KEENAN GREENE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Norfolk. Roderick Charles Young, District Judge. (2:19-cv-00150-RCY-DEM)
    Submitted: December 14, 2023                                Decided: December 28, 2023
    Before THACKER, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Shannon Keenan Greene, Appellant Pro Se. James Arthur Cales, III, FURNISS, DAVIS,
    RASHKIND & SAUNDERS, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    USCA4 Appeal: 22-1140      Doc: 20         Filed: 12/28/2023     Pg: 2 of 2
    PER CURIAM:
    Shannon Keenan Greene filed three separate lawsuits arising from her former
    employment with the City of Virginia Beach (“Defendant”). The district court issued an
    order administratively closing two of her cases—including the instant case—and directed
    Greene to file an amended complaint in the third action that included all of her claims
    against Defendant. Greene seeks to appeal the administrative closure of the instant case.
    This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , and
    certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 
    28 U.S.C. § 1292
    ; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen
    v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 
    337 U.S. 541
    , 545-46 (1949). The order Greene seeks to
    appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See
    Campbell-McCormick, Inc. v. Oliver, 
    874 F.3d 390
    , 394-95 (4th Cir. 2017); Penn-Am. Ins.
    Co. v. Mapp, 
    521 F.3d 290
    , 295-96 (4th Cir. 2008).
    Accordingly, we 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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22-1140

Filed Date: 12/28/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/29/2023