Tessie Casey v. Plastic Omnium Auto Exterior LLC

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1183
TESSIE THERESSA CASEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PLASTIC OMNIUM AUTO EXTERIOR LLC,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
KAREN BEASLEY; DAVID HUNTER; GREG LEWIS; RICK WALLACE,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:11-cv-01432-HMH)
Submitted: June 18, 2013 Decided: July 15, 2013
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tessie Theressa Casey, Appellant Pro Se. John Timothy Merrell,
Madison Baker Wyche, III, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK &
STEWART, PC, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tessie Theressa Casey seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and granting summary judgment in favor of Plastic Omnium
Auto Exterior LLC (“Plastic Omnium”) on Casey’s employment
discrimination claims. 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 Casey seeks to appeal is
neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
collateral order. Specifically, the district court’s order did
not resolve all claims between the parties; Plastic Omnium’s
counterclaims are still pending in the district court. Further,
the district court did not expressly certify its order as final
pursuant to Rule 54(b). See MCI Constructors, LLC v. City of
Greensboro, 610 F.3d 849, 855 (4th Cir. 2010) (describing two-
part showing required for Rule 54(b) certification).
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