Filed: Dec. 18, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1906 JOYCE E. ROWLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH; JOHN SMITHSON, City Manager; JOEL DAVIS, Assistant City Manager; KEVIN BLAYTON, Public Works Director; DOUGLAS MADDOCK, Planning and Development Director; individually and in their representative capacities as employees of the City North Myrtle Beach, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1906 JOYCE E. ROWLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH; JOHN SMITHSON, City Manager; JOEL DAVIS, Assistant City Manager; KEVIN BLAYTON, Public Works Director; DOUGLAS MADDOCK, Planning and Development Director; individually and in their representative capacities as employees of the City North Myrtle Beach, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South C..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1906
JOYCE E. ROWLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CITY OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH; JOHN SMITHSON,
City Manager; JOEL DAVIS, Assistant City
Manager; KEVIN BLAYTON, Public Works Director;
DOUGLAS MADDOCK, Planning and Development
Director; individually and in their
representative capacities as employees of the
City North Myrtle Beach,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:06-cv-01873-TLW)
Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 18, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joyce E. Rowley, Appellant Pro Se. Derwood Lorraine Aydlette, III,
Christopher Wofford Johnson, GIGNILLIAT, SAVITZ & BETTIS, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joyce E. Rowley seeks to appeal the district court order
consolidating her two cases and denying as moot several pending
motions. 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 Rowley seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny
Rowley’s motion for stay of proceedings and 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 -