Filed: Aug. 29, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1499 PENNY JOHNSON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. ASHTON, LLC; UIP PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, ET AL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:10-cv-02461-CCB) Submitted: August 25, 2011 Decided: August 29, 2011 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Penny Johnson, Appell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1499 PENNY JOHNSON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. ASHTON, LLC; UIP PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, ET AL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:10-cv-02461-CCB) Submitted: August 25, 2011 Decided: August 29, 2011 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Penny Johnson, Appella..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1499
PENNY JOHNSON,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
ASHTON, LLC; UIP PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, ET AL,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:10-cv-02461-CCB)
Submitted: August 25, 2011 Decided: August 29, 2011
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Penny Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Richard W. Evans, MCCARTHY
WILSON, LLP, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Penny Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order transferring venue of her complaint. This court may
exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291
(2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28
U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial
Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order
Johnson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 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