Filed: Jun. 14, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2214 AURA LABRO KARAGIANNOPOULOS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF LOWELL, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:05-cv-00401) Submitted: January 10, 2007 Decided: June 14, 2007 Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Aura LaBro Karagiannopoulo
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2214 AURA LABRO KARAGIANNOPOULOS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF LOWELL, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:05-cv-00401) Submitted: January 10, 2007 Decided: June 14, 2007 Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Aura LaBro Karagiannopoulos..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-2214
AURA LABRO KARAGIANNOPOULOS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CITY OF LOWELL,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:05-cv-00401)
Submitted: January 10, 2007 Decided: June 14, 2007
Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aura LaBro Karagiannopoulos, Appellant Pro Se. Martha Raymond
Thompson, STOTT, HOLLOWELL, PALMER & WINDHAM, Gastonia, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Aura LaBro Karagiannopoulos seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying her motion for a default judgment. 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 Karagiannopoulos
seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order. See Harvey Const. Co. v.
Robertson-CECO Corp.,
10 F.3d 300, 304 (5th Cir. 1994).
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 the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 2 -