Filed: Jul. 05, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2534 SHAHNAZ POURSAIED, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. EEOC; CONSTANGY BROOKS & SMITH, LLP, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:15-cv-00548-TDS-JLW) Submitted: May 31, 2016 Decided: July 5, 2016 Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shahnaz P
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2534 SHAHNAZ POURSAIED, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. EEOC; CONSTANGY BROOKS & SMITH, LLP, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:15-cv-00548-TDS-JLW) Submitted: May 31, 2016 Decided: July 5, 2016 Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shahnaz Po..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2534
SHAHNAZ POURSAIED,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
EEOC; CONSTANGY BROOKS & SMITH, LLP,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:15-cv-00548-TDS-JLW)
Submitted: May 31, 2016 Decided: July 5, 2016
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Shahnaz Poursaied, Appellant Pro Se. Steven N. Baker, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina; H. Lane
Young, II, HAWKINS, PARNELL, THACKSTON & YOUNG, LLP, Atlanta,
Georgia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shahnaz Poursaied seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing her civil action with prejudice on the majority
of her claims and without prejudice as to her potential claim
under the Privacy Act. 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 order Poursaied seeks to
appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory
or collateral order. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y,
Inc.,
807 F.3d 619, 623-24, 629-30 (4th Cir. 2015).
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