Filed: May 23, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1248 KAREN MOORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GOOGLE, INC., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Bristow Marchant, Magistrate Judge. (2:13-cv-03034-RMG-BM) Submitted: April 30, 2014 Decided: May 23, 2014 Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Karen Moore, Appellant Pro Se. David Spence Cox,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1248 KAREN MOORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GOOGLE, INC., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Bristow Marchant, Magistrate Judge. (2:13-cv-03034-RMG-BM) Submitted: April 30, 2014 Decided: May 23, 2014 Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Karen Moore, Appellant Pro Se. David Spence Cox, W..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1248
KAREN MOORE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GOOGLE, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Bristow Marchant, Magistrate
Judge. (2:13-cv-03034-RMG-BM)
Submitted: April 30, 2014 Decided: May 23, 2014
Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Karen Moore, Appellant Pro Se. David Spence Cox, WOMBLE CARLYLE
SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Karen Moore seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s
orders requiring her to bring her case into proper order, and
denying several pretrial motions. This court may exercise
jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012),
and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.
Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The orders Moore seeks
to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory
or collateral orders. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction. We deny Moore’s motion to expedite as
moot. 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