Filed: Apr. 06, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2544 GUSSIE MINUS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAK AMERICAS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Robert S. Carr, Magistrate Judge. (CA-03-4029-2-18) Submitted: March 2, 2005 Decided: April 6, 2005 Before TRAXLER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gussie Minus, Appella
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2544 GUSSIE MINUS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAK AMERICAS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Robert S. Carr, Magistrate Judge. (CA-03-4029-2-18) Submitted: March 2, 2005 Decided: April 6, 2005 Before TRAXLER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gussie Minus, Appellan..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2544
GUSSIE MINUS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DAK AMERICAS,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Robert S. Carr, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-03-4029-2-18)
Submitted: March 2, 2005 Decided: April 6, 2005
Before TRAXLER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gussie Minus, Appellant Pro Se. Stacy Kaplan Wood, PARKER, POE,
ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, L.L.P., Charlotte, North Carolina; James Walker
Coleman, IV, PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, L.L.P., Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Gussie Minus appeals the report and recommendation of the
magistrate judge recommending summary judgment in favor of DAK
Americas in Minus’ employment discrimination action. We dismiss
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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 report and recommendation from
which Minus appeals does not constitute an order over which this
court may exercise jurisdiction. We therefore dismiss the appeal.
We deny all pending motions 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
- 2 -